AVAHO

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is the use of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in patients who have complete resections of lung cancers and who show evidence of spread to mediastinal lymph nodes, so-called N2 disease.

Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.

However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.

The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.

However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.

First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.

I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.

When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.

Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.

That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.

I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is the use of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in patients who have complete resections of lung cancers and who show evidence of spread to mediastinal lymph nodes, so-called N2 disease.

Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.

However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.

The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.

However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.

First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.

I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.

When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.

Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.

That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.

I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is the use of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in patients who have complete resections of lung cancers and who show evidence of spread to mediastinal lymph nodes, so-called N2 disease.

Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.

However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.

The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.

However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.

First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.

I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.

When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.

Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.

That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.

I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A number of new studies in lung cancer have started in recent months. Could one of your patients benefit from participating?

Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.

A number of new studies in lung cancer have started in recent months. Could one of your patients benefit from participating?

Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.

A number of new studies in lung cancer have started in recent months. Could one of your patients benefit from participating?

Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) to treatment with the androgen pathway inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi, Astellas, Pfizer) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with enzalutamide alone for patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the TALAPRO-2 trial.

As determined on the basis of imaging, PFS was 37% better for talazoparib plus enzalutamide than for enzalutamide monotherapy. Combination therapy proved superior regardless of homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway status, noted the authors.

“Not only did the combination therapy delay disease progression, it also significantly delayed progression of PSA [prostate-specific antigen] readings and the time until chemotherapy was needed compared to the control group,” said lead study author Neeraj Agarwal, MD, professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“This is important because advanced prostate cancer can be associated with pain, fractures, suffering, and death. The current standard of care treatments were approved almost a decade ago, leaving a huge, unmet need for novel drugs in this setting,” he said.

The new results could pave the way for a prostate cancer indication for talazoparib; the company has said that it will submit these data to regulatory authorities. At present, the drug is approved only for use in BRCA+ breast cancer, an indication that was approved in 2018.

The findings were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Overall, talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS over placebo plus enzalutamide. “Results from the primary analysis of the TALAPRO-2 trial support the use of talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC regardless of HRR gene alteration status,” Dr. Agarwal and colleagues concluded.

However, one expert disagreed with the authors’ conclusion regarding HHR pathway status. On the basis of imaging, PFS was 54% better in HHR-deficient patients in the combination therapy group. It was 30% better for patients with HHR-nondeficient tumors or tumors without known HHR status based on imaging and 34% better based on tumor tissue testing.

“There was a huge magnitude in benefit based on HHR, and I think HRR status matters,” commented Elena Castro, MD, PhD, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (Spain), who served as the invited discussant.

“We need to understand the benefit of ARPi [androgen receptor pathway inhibition] and PARP inhibitors better,” she said. “The balance between side effects and benefit depends on HRR status.”

Dr. Castro also noted that the treatment landscape has changed. ARPi is now a standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, both for hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease. “So the question is, does the addition of a PARP inhibitor induce responses after progression to an ARPi in HHR-nondeficient tumors?”
 

Study details

In the TALAPRO-2 trial, Dr. Agarwal and colleagues randomly assigned 805 patients to receive either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo. All patients in the cohort received enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

Participants had mCRPC and were unselected for genetic alterations in DNA damage repair pathways directly or indirectly involved with HRR. They were aged 36-91 years (median age, 71). The cohort was enrolled from 25 countries, including the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The men were stratified on the basis of prior use of abiraterone or docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alteration status. The study’s primary endpoint was imaging-based PFS (ibPFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR).

Overall, median ibPFS by BICR was significantly improved in the combination group in comparison with the patients who received placebo; it was not reached versus 21.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.63; P < .001). It was also significantly improved among the HRR-deficient subgroup (HR, 0.46; P < .001) as well as in the HRR-nondeficient or unknown (HR, 0.70; P = .004) and HRR-nondeficient patients by tumor tissue testing (HR, 0.66; P = .009).

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide was also favored with regard to other endpoints. Dr. Agarwal noted that, while overall survival data are as yet immature, objective response rates, PSA response of at least 50%, and time to PSA progression and use of subsequent cytotoxic chemotherapy and antineoplastic therapy significantly favored the talazoparib group.

The objective response rate was 61.7% versus 43.9% (P = .005), with 37.5% versus 18.2% complete responses.

“The higher rates of complete response suggest a cooperative effect of talazoparib plus enzalutamide treatment,” he explained.
 

High rate of adverse events

The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide; 71.9% of the patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide experienced grade 3-4 TEAEs versus 40.6%. The most common grade 3 or greater TEAEs in the talazoparib group were anemia, low neutrophil counts, and low platelet counts. Hypertension, anemia, and fatigue were the most common in the placebo group. Talazoparib was discontinued in 19.1% of patients because of TEAEs. Enzalutamide was discontinued in 10.8% of patients in the combination group versus 11.0% in the placebo group.

Dr. Agarwal pointed out that there were TEAEs of special interest for talazoparib. “Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in one patient during the safety reporting period, and acute myeloid leukemia was reported in one patient during the follow-up period,” he said.

Additionally, pulmonary embolism was reported in 10 (2.5%) patients (grade 3 in 9 patients) in the talazoparib arm and in 3 (0.7%) patients (all grade 3) in the placebo arm.
 

Results less relevant

Commenting on the study, Matthew Zibelman, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that these results represent an “intriguing finding for men with mCRPC, particularly in conjunction with the previously reported PROPEL study results.

“However, given that many patients receive an androgen receptor inhibitor now for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, these results are less relevant to current practice,” Dr. Zibelman said.

“Demonstration of an overall survival benefit of the combination would be optimal to change standard of care vs potential sequential therapy.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, manufacturer of enzalutamide and talazoparib. Dr. Agarwal has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Zibelman has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, Jannsen, EMD Serono, and Blue Earth.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) to treatment with the androgen pathway inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi, Astellas, Pfizer) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with enzalutamide alone for patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the TALAPRO-2 trial.

As determined on the basis of imaging, PFS was 37% better for talazoparib plus enzalutamide than for enzalutamide monotherapy. Combination therapy proved superior regardless of homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway status, noted the authors.

“Not only did the combination therapy delay disease progression, it also significantly delayed progression of PSA [prostate-specific antigen] readings and the time until chemotherapy was needed compared to the control group,” said lead study author Neeraj Agarwal, MD, professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“This is important because advanced prostate cancer can be associated with pain, fractures, suffering, and death. The current standard of care treatments were approved almost a decade ago, leaving a huge, unmet need for novel drugs in this setting,” he said.

The new results could pave the way for a prostate cancer indication for talazoparib; the company has said that it will submit these data to regulatory authorities. At present, the drug is approved only for use in BRCA+ breast cancer, an indication that was approved in 2018.

The findings were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Overall, talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS over placebo plus enzalutamide. “Results from the primary analysis of the TALAPRO-2 trial support the use of talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC regardless of HRR gene alteration status,” Dr. Agarwal and colleagues concluded.

However, one expert disagreed with the authors’ conclusion regarding HHR pathway status. On the basis of imaging, PFS was 54% better in HHR-deficient patients in the combination therapy group. It was 30% better for patients with HHR-nondeficient tumors or tumors without known HHR status based on imaging and 34% better based on tumor tissue testing.

“There was a huge magnitude in benefit based on HHR, and I think HRR status matters,” commented Elena Castro, MD, PhD, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (Spain), who served as the invited discussant.

“We need to understand the benefit of ARPi [androgen receptor pathway inhibition] and PARP inhibitors better,” she said. “The balance between side effects and benefit depends on HRR status.”

Dr. Castro also noted that the treatment landscape has changed. ARPi is now a standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, both for hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease. “So the question is, does the addition of a PARP inhibitor induce responses after progression to an ARPi in HHR-nondeficient tumors?”
 

Study details

In the TALAPRO-2 trial, Dr. Agarwal and colleagues randomly assigned 805 patients to receive either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo. All patients in the cohort received enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

Participants had mCRPC and were unselected for genetic alterations in DNA damage repair pathways directly or indirectly involved with HRR. They were aged 36-91 years (median age, 71). The cohort was enrolled from 25 countries, including the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The men were stratified on the basis of prior use of abiraterone or docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alteration status. The study’s primary endpoint was imaging-based PFS (ibPFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR).

Overall, median ibPFS by BICR was significantly improved in the combination group in comparison with the patients who received placebo; it was not reached versus 21.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.63; P < .001). It was also significantly improved among the HRR-deficient subgroup (HR, 0.46; P < .001) as well as in the HRR-nondeficient or unknown (HR, 0.70; P = .004) and HRR-nondeficient patients by tumor tissue testing (HR, 0.66; P = .009).

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide was also favored with regard to other endpoints. Dr. Agarwal noted that, while overall survival data are as yet immature, objective response rates, PSA response of at least 50%, and time to PSA progression and use of subsequent cytotoxic chemotherapy and antineoplastic therapy significantly favored the talazoparib group.

The objective response rate was 61.7% versus 43.9% (P = .005), with 37.5% versus 18.2% complete responses.

“The higher rates of complete response suggest a cooperative effect of talazoparib plus enzalutamide treatment,” he explained.
 

High rate of adverse events

The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide; 71.9% of the patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide experienced grade 3-4 TEAEs versus 40.6%. The most common grade 3 or greater TEAEs in the talazoparib group were anemia, low neutrophil counts, and low platelet counts. Hypertension, anemia, and fatigue were the most common in the placebo group. Talazoparib was discontinued in 19.1% of patients because of TEAEs. Enzalutamide was discontinued in 10.8% of patients in the combination group versus 11.0% in the placebo group.

Dr. Agarwal pointed out that there were TEAEs of special interest for talazoparib. “Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in one patient during the safety reporting period, and acute myeloid leukemia was reported in one patient during the follow-up period,” he said.

Additionally, pulmonary embolism was reported in 10 (2.5%) patients (grade 3 in 9 patients) in the talazoparib arm and in 3 (0.7%) patients (all grade 3) in the placebo arm.
 

Results less relevant

Commenting on the study, Matthew Zibelman, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that these results represent an “intriguing finding for men with mCRPC, particularly in conjunction with the previously reported PROPEL study results.

“However, given that many patients receive an androgen receptor inhibitor now for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, these results are less relevant to current practice,” Dr. Zibelman said.

“Demonstration of an overall survival benefit of the combination would be optimal to change standard of care vs potential sequential therapy.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, manufacturer of enzalutamide and talazoparib. Dr. Agarwal has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Zibelman has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, Jannsen, EMD Serono, and Blue Earth.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) to treatment with the androgen pathway inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi, Astellas, Pfizer) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with enzalutamide alone for patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the TALAPRO-2 trial.

As determined on the basis of imaging, PFS was 37% better for talazoparib plus enzalutamide than for enzalutamide monotherapy. Combination therapy proved superior regardless of homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway status, noted the authors.

“Not only did the combination therapy delay disease progression, it also significantly delayed progression of PSA [prostate-specific antigen] readings and the time until chemotherapy was needed compared to the control group,” said lead study author Neeraj Agarwal, MD, professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“This is important because advanced prostate cancer can be associated with pain, fractures, suffering, and death. The current standard of care treatments were approved almost a decade ago, leaving a huge, unmet need for novel drugs in this setting,” he said.

The new results could pave the way for a prostate cancer indication for talazoparib; the company has said that it will submit these data to regulatory authorities. At present, the drug is approved only for use in BRCA+ breast cancer, an indication that was approved in 2018.

The findings were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Overall, talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS over placebo plus enzalutamide. “Results from the primary analysis of the TALAPRO-2 trial support the use of talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC regardless of HRR gene alteration status,” Dr. Agarwal and colleagues concluded.

However, one expert disagreed with the authors’ conclusion regarding HHR pathway status. On the basis of imaging, PFS was 54% better in HHR-deficient patients in the combination therapy group. It was 30% better for patients with HHR-nondeficient tumors or tumors without known HHR status based on imaging and 34% better based on tumor tissue testing.

“There was a huge magnitude in benefit based on HHR, and I think HRR status matters,” commented Elena Castro, MD, PhD, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (Spain), who served as the invited discussant.

“We need to understand the benefit of ARPi [androgen receptor pathway inhibition] and PARP inhibitors better,” she said. “The balance between side effects and benefit depends on HRR status.”

Dr. Castro also noted that the treatment landscape has changed. ARPi is now a standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, both for hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease. “So the question is, does the addition of a PARP inhibitor induce responses after progression to an ARPi in HHR-nondeficient tumors?”
 

Study details

In the TALAPRO-2 trial, Dr. Agarwal and colleagues randomly assigned 805 patients to receive either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo. All patients in the cohort received enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

Participants had mCRPC and were unselected for genetic alterations in DNA damage repair pathways directly or indirectly involved with HRR. They were aged 36-91 years (median age, 71). The cohort was enrolled from 25 countries, including the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The men were stratified on the basis of prior use of abiraterone or docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alteration status. The study’s primary endpoint was imaging-based PFS (ibPFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR).

Overall, median ibPFS by BICR was significantly improved in the combination group in comparison with the patients who received placebo; it was not reached versus 21.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.63; P < .001). It was also significantly improved among the HRR-deficient subgroup (HR, 0.46; P < .001) as well as in the HRR-nondeficient or unknown (HR, 0.70; P = .004) and HRR-nondeficient patients by tumor tissue testing (HR, 0.66; P = .009).

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide was also favored with regard to other endpoints. Dr. Agarwal noted that, while overall survival data are as yet immature, objective response rates, PSA response of at least 50%, and time to PSA progression and use of subsequent cytotoxic chemotherapy and antineoplastic therapy significantly favored the talazoparib group.

The objective response rate was 61.7% versus 43.9% (P = .005), with 37.5% versus 18.2% complete responses.

“The higher rates of complete response suggest a cooperative effect of talazoparib plus enzalutamide treatment,” he explained.
 

High rate of adverse events

The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide; 71.9% of the patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide experienced grade 3-4 TEAEs versus 40.6%. The most common grade 3 or greater TEAEs in the talazoparib group were anemia, low neutrophil counts, and low platelet counts. Hypertension, anemia, and fatigue were the most common in the placebo group. Talazoparib was discontinued in 19.1% of patients because of TEAEs. Enzalutamide was discontinued in 10.8% of patients in the combination group versus 11.0% in the placebo group.

Dr. Agarwal pointed out that there were TEAEs of special interest for talazoparib. “Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in one patient during the safety reporting period, and acute myeloid leukemia was reported in one patient during the follow-up period,” he said.

Additionally, pulmonary embolism was reported in 10 (2.5%) patients (grade 3 in 9 patients) in the talazoparib arm and in 3 (0.7%) patients (all grade 3) in the placebo arm.
 

Results less relevant

Commenting on the study, Matthew Zibelman, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that these results represent an “intriguing finding for men with mCRPC, particularly in conjunction with the previously reported PROPEL study results.

“However, given that many patients receive an androgen receptor inhibitor now for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, these results are less relevant to current practice,” Dr. Zibelman said.

“Demonstration of an overall survival benefit of the combination would be optimal to change standard of care vs potential sequential therapy.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, manufacturer of enzalutamide and talazoparib. Dr. Agarwal has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Zibelman has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, Jannsen, EMD Serono, and Blue Earth.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – New findings lend further support to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) as a standard of care for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

Extended follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial continue to show that, compared with placebo, nivolumab improves disease-free survival, nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with high-risk, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after undergoing radical surgery.

The benefit was observed in both in the intent-to-treat population (ITT) and in the subset of patients with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1%.

“In the ITT population, median disease-free survival with nivolumab was doubled compared to placebo,” said lead author Matthew Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology and codirector of the Center of Excellence for Bladder Cancer at Tisch Cancer Institute, New York. “For the patients with high PD-L1 expression, the median disease-free survival with nivolumab reached 52.6 months, more than six times that of the placebo arm.

“These results further support adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after resection,” he concluded.

Dr. Galsky presented the findings at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Practice changing

The earlier results of this study have already led to an approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In August 2021, nivolumab became the first adjuvant immunotherapy for use in patients with urothelial carcinoma at high risk for recurrence after radical resection

“This is a practice-changing study,” said Scot Niglio, MD, medical oncologist, New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was approached for an independent comment.

“For decades, there were limited to zero treatment options in the postsurgical setting for urothelial cancer patients with a high recurrence risk,” he said.

The standard of care for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma is surgery, which may include neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but most patients will experience disease recurrence, he explained.

“When urothelial cancer recurs outside the urinary tract, the prognosis quickly changes from curable to incurable,” he said, “making this area of research paramount.”

Dr. Niglio emphasized that these updated results show continued benefit from nivolumab on disease-free survival, as well as nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival, supporting its use as standard of care therapy.

“Even though the overall survival data is still maturing, the current data remains promising,” he said. “Patients with urothelial cancer meeting the criteria for high risk now have a treatment option to mitigate the potential of distant recurrence.”

In his own practice, Dr. Niglio added that he will “continue to discuss adjuvant nivolumab as a potential treatment option with all patients who are eligible based on this study.”
 

Met all endpoints

The Checkmate 274 trial involved 353 patients (of whom 140 patients had PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomly assigned to take nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks and 356 patients (with 142 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomized to placebo. All patients had pathologic evidence of urothelial cancer at high risk of recurrence and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of1 or less.

Previous results, at a median follow-up of about 20 months, show that the study met its primary endpoint, showing significant prolongation of disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, with nivolumab at 21 months versus placebo at 10.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001).

When the analysis considered only patients with tumors expressing PD-L1 of at least 1%, the median disease-free survival was even higher (not reached vs. 10.8 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001).

Nivolumab was also superior to placebo for NUTRFS, in both in the entire ITT population and in the subset with PD-L1–positive tumors.

The latest results come from a median follow-up of 36.1 months. The median disease-free survival was 22 months with nivolumab, compared with 10.9 months with placebo in ITT patients and 52.6 months on nivolumab versus 8.4 months in patients with PD-L1 of at least 1%.

Nivolumab was superior to placebo for secondary and exploratory endpoints, NUTRFS (ITT: HR, 0.72 and PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.53) and DMFS (ITT: HR, 0.74; PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.58). However, overall survival data remained immature and will be assessed as a future data cutoff, Dr. Galsky explained.

The updated analysis also included another exploratory endpoint, progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), defined as time from randomization to disease progression after subsequent next-line systemic therapy, start of second subsequent next-line systemic therapy, or death.

Median PFS2 was 61.2 months for all-patients who received nivolumab versus 47.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.79). In the PD-L1 of 1% or greater subgroup, median PFS2 was not reached with nivolumab versus 39.4 months with placebo (HR, 0.54).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% and 7.2% of patients (nivolumab vs. placebo), and this was consistent with the primary analysis. “No new safety signals were identified,” said Dr. Galsky.

The CheckMate 274 trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of nivolumab. Dr. Galsky reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – New findings lend further support to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) as a standard of care for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

Extended follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial continue to show that, compared with placebo, nivolumab improves disease-free survival, nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with high-risk, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after undergoing radical surgery.

The benefit was observed in both in the intent-to-treat population (ITT) and in the subset of patients with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1%.

“In the ITT population, median disease-free survival with nivolumab was doubled compared to placebo,” said lead author Matthew Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology and codirector of the Center of Excellence for Bladder Cancer at Tisch Cancer Institute, New York. “For the patients with high PD-L1 expression, the median disease-free survival with nivolumab reached 52.6 months, more than six times that of the placebo arm.

“These results further support adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after resection,” he concluded.

Dr. Galsky presented the findings at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Practice changing

The earlier results of this study have already led to an approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In August 2021, nivolumab became the first adjuvant immunotherapy for use in patients with urothelial carcinoma at high risk for recurrence after radical resection

“This is a practice-changing study,” said Scot Niglio, MD, medical oncologist, New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was approached for an independent comment.

“For decades, there were limited to zero treatment options in the postsurgical setting for urothelial cancer patients with a high recurrence risk,” he said.

The standard of care for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma is surgery, which may include neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but most patients will experience disease recurrence, he explained.

“When urothelial cancer recurs outside the urinary tract, the prognosis quickly changes from curable to incurable,” he said, “making this area of research paramount.”

Dr. Niglio emphasized that these updated results show continued benefit from nivolumab on disease-free survival, as well as nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival, supporting its use as standard of care therapy.

“Even though the overall survival data is still maturing, the current data remains promising,” he said. “Patients with urothelial cancer meeting the criteria for high risk now have a treatment option to mitigate the potential of distant recurrence.”

In his own practice, Dr. Niglio added that he will “continue to discuss adjuvant nivolumab as a potential treatment option with all patients who are eligible based on this study.”
 

Met all endpoints

The Checkmate 274 trial involved 353 patients (of whom 140 patients had PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomly assigned to take nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks and 356 patients (with 142 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomized to placebo. All patients had pathologic evidence of urothelial cancer at high risk of recurrence and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of1 or less.

Previous results, at a median follow-up of about 20 months, show that the study met its primary endpoint, showing significant prolongation of disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, with nivolumab at 21 months versus placebo at 10.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001).

When the analysis considered only patients with tumors expressing PD-L1 of at least 1%, the median disease-free survival was even higher (not reached vs. 10.8 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001).

Nivolumab was also superior to placebo for NUTRFS, in both in the entire ITT population and in the subset with PD-L1–positive tumors.

The latest results come from a median follow-up of 36.1 months. The median disease-free survival was 22 months with nivolumab, compared with 10.9 months with placebo in ITT patients and 52.6 months on nivolumab versus 8.4 months in patients with PD-L1 of at least 1%.

Nivolumab was superior to placebo for secondary and exploratory endpoints, NUTRFS (ITT: HR, 0.72 and PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.53) and DMFS (ITT: HR, 0.74; PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.58). However, overall survival data remained immature and will be assessed as a future data cutoff, Dr. Galsky explained.

The updated analysis also included another exploratory endpoint, progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), defined as time from randomization to disease progression after subsequent next-line systemic therapy, start of second subsequent next-line systemic therapy, or death.

Median PFS2 was 61.2 months for all-patients who received nivolumab versus 47.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.79). In the PD-L1 of 1% or greater subgroup, median PFS2 was not reached with nivolumab versus 39.4 months with placebo (HR, 0.54).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% and 7.2% of patients (nivolumab vs. placebo), and this was consistent with the primary analysis. “No new safety signals were identified,” said Dr. Galsky.

The CheckMate 274 trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of nivolumab. Dr. Galsky reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – New findings lend further support to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) as a standard of care for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

Extended follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial continue to show that, compared with placebo, nivolumab improves disease-free survival, nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with high-risk, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after undergoing radical surgery.

The benefit was observed in both in the intent-to-treat population (ITT) and in the subset of patients with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1%.

“In the ITT population, median disease-free survival with nivolumab was doubled compared to placebo,” said lead author Matthew Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology and codirector of the Center of Excellence for Bladder Cancer at Tisch Cancer Institute, New York. “For the patients with high PD-L1 expression, the median disease-free survival with nivolumab reached 52.6 months, more than six times that of the placebo arm.

“These results further support adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after resection,” he concluded.

Dr. Galsky presented the findings at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Practice changing

The earlier results of this study have already led to an approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In August 2021, nivolumab became the first adjuvant immunotherapy for use in patients with urothelial carcinoma at high risk for recurrence after radical resection

“This is a practice-changing study,” said Scot Niglio, MD, medical oncologist, New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was approached for an independent comment.

“For decades, there were limited to zero treatment options in the postsurgical setting for urothelial cancer patients with a high recurrence risk,” he said.

The standard of care for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma is surgery, which may include neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but most patients will experience disease recurrence, he explained.

“When urothelial cancer recurs outside the urinary tract, the prognosis quickly changes from curable to incurable,” he said, “making this area of research paramount.”

Dr. Niglio emphasized that these updated results show continued benefit from nivolumab on disease-free survival, as well as nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival, supporting its use as standard of care therapy.

“Even though the overall survival data is still maturing, the current data remains promising,” he said. “Patients with urothelial cancer meeting the criteria for high risk now have a treatment option to mitigate the potential of distant recurrence.”

In his own practice, Dr. Niglio added that he will “continue to discuss adjuvant nivolumab as a potential treatment option with all patients who are eligible based on this study.”
 

Met all endpoints

The Checkmate 274 trial involved 353 patients (of whom 140 patients had PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomly assigned to take nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks and 356 patients (with 142 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%) randomized to placebo. All patients had pathologic evidence of urothelial cancer at high risk of recurrence and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of1 or less.

Previous results, at a median follow-up of about 20 months, show that the study met its primary endpoint, showing significant prolongation of disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, with nivolumab at 21 months versus placebo at 10.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001).

When the analysis considered only patients with tumors expressing PD-L1 of at least 1%, the median disease-free survival was even higher (not reached vs. 10.8 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001).

Nivolumab was also superior to placebo for NUTRFS, in both in the entire ITT population and in the subset with PD-L1–positive tumors.

The latest results come from a median follow-up of 36.1 months. The median disease-free survival was 22 months with nivolumab, compared with 10.9 months with placebo in ITT patients and 52.6 months on nivolumab versus 8.4 months in patients with PD-L1 of at least 1%.

Nivolumab was superior to placebo for secondary and exploratory endpoints, NUTRFS (ITT: HR, 0.72 and PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.53) and DMFS (ITT: HR, 0.74; PD-L1 ≥ 1%: HR, 0.58). However, overall survival data remained immature and will be assessed as a future data cutoff, Dr. Galsky explained.

The updated analysis also included another exploratory endpoint, progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), defined as time from randomization to disease progression after subsequent next-line systemic therapy, start of second subsequent next-line systemic therapy, or death.

Median PFS2 was 61.2 months for all-patients who received nivolumab versus 47.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.79). In the PD-L1 of 1% or greater subgroup, median PFS2 was not reached with nivolumab versus 39.4 months with placebo (HR, 0.54).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% and 7.2% of patients (nivolumab vs. placebo), and this was consistent with the primary analysis. “No new safety signals were identified,” said Dr. Galsky.

The CheckMate 274 trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of nivolumab. Dr. Galsky reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

PARIS – Two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – nilotinib (Tasigna) and ponatinib (Iclusig) – may cause atherosclerotic arterial diseases. This common side effect, which has even been seen in patients without cardiovascular risk factors, has gone unnoticed in clinical trials. So what can be done to prevent it?

Cardiologist Gabrielle Sarlon, MD, PhD, a professor at Marseille (France) University Hospital, offered her recommendations at the European Days of the French Society of Cardiology Conference 2023.

In the literature, we find many hypotheses that seek to explain why these drugs bring about the formation of atheromatous plaque. The findings of one French study led Dr. Sarlon to state, “I firmly believe that, in some patients, these treatments make LDL cholesterol go up.” This would be the main cause of the coronary and peripheral arterial diseases that are being seen.

Therefore, “LDL-C should start being monitored when the therapy starts, and a statin may have to be prescribed,” she said.

Arterial diseases

By bringing about a marked improvement in patients’ chances of survival, TKIs “have revolutionized the management of chronic myeloid leukemia,” Dr. Sarlon added. But these treatments have side effects. The most common is high blood pressure, “an effect that attests to the efficacy of targeted therapies and that must be quickly treated” with antihypertensives.

It is well known that the targeted therapies cause the rise in blood pressure. What was unexpected, though, was the vascular toxicity seen with the latest generation of TKIs. “This is a real toxicity that we need to know about, detect, and manage,” said Dr. Sarlon.

The prevalence of arterial diseases induced by nilotinib, a second-generation TKI, can be as high as 10%. Single-center studies have indicated much higher numbers. In a small study that Dr. Sarlon and her team conducted at Marseille University Hospital, atherosclerotic-type arterial injuries were observed in more than 30% of patients treated with nilotinib.

Dr. Sarlon noted that the signs of arterial toxicity occurring with this treatment have not appeared in clinical trials. Observations of the real-life use of nilotinib led French and German teams to sound the alarm. They noticed that some patients treated for CML had developed claudication and progression to critical limb ischemia of the lower extremities.

Risk factors uncovered

The first retrospective analysis to explore this risk was carried out by a German team. They included 179 patients who received nilotinib and found that 11 (6.2%) developed severe and previously unrecognized lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that required invasive therapy. The mean time from initiation of nilotinib to the first PAD event was 105.1 weeks (range = 16-212 weeks).

The following have emerged as major risk factors for nilotinib-induced PAD: the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, age older than 60 years, and long duration of exposure to nilotinib. Some of these factors were confirmed in the more recent study conducted at Marseille University Hospital involving patients treated with nilotinib. According to other research, there seems to be a correlation between this risk and the dose administered.

In the case of ponatinib, the side effects are even more common – so much so that, a few months after this third-generation TKI was authorized, a warning was issued about its use. A long-term follow-up study reported a 28% prevalence of cardiovascular events, while arterial diseases were observed in 20% of cases after 1-2 years on the treatment.

In terms of pathophysiology, the Marseilles University Hospital study found that arterial injuries were associated with stenosis greater than 50% in almost half of cases. “The atheromatous plaques were found where they typically are,” with the carotid bulb being the most involved territory, according to the researchers. But they’re also found in other arteries – femoral, vertebral, even renal – “sometimes in patients without cardiovascular risk factors.”

One distinctive characteristic to keep in mind is that “lipid-rich atheromatous plaques appear very dark on imaging” and thus can go unnoticed during a Doppler ultrasound. And, Dr. Sarlon added, “surprisingly, the thickening can extend to the external carotid artery.”

Ankle-brachial index

Published last year, the first European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology present specific baseline risk-assessment and monitoring recommendations regarding patients treated with nilotinib and ponatinib. One suggests that a cardiovascular risk assessment be done every 3 months during the first year and every 6-12 months thereafter. This assessment would include such items as ECGs, blood pressure measurements, and lipid profile tests.

In addition, it is advised that every 6 months an ankle-brachial index test be performed to check for PAD. At Marseille University Hospital, a Doppler ultrasound is also done at each follow-up appointment to look for arterial plaques, “even for patients at low risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Sarlon. “It seems, above all, absolutely necessary that hematologists order an LDL-C test and, if needed, consider statin therapy,” all the while keeping in mind that “the target LDL-C level is 1 gram per liter.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – nilotinib (Tasigna) and ponatinib (Iclusig) – may cause atherosclerotic arterial diseases. This common side effect, which has even been seen in patients without cardiovascular risk factors, has gone unnoticed in clinical trials. So what can be done to prevent it?

Cardiologist Gabrielle Sarlon, MD, PhD, a professor at Marseille (France) University Hospital, offered her recommendations at the European Days of the French Society of Cardiology Conference 2023.

In the literature, we find many hypotheses that seek to explain why these drugs bring about the formation of atheromatous plaque. The findings of one French study led Dr. Sarlon to state, “I firmly believe that, in some patients, these treatments make LDL cholesterol go up.” This would be the main cause of the coronary and peripheral arterial diseases that are being seen.

Therefore, “LDL-C should start being monitored when the therapy starts, and a statin may have to be prescribed,” she said.

Arterial diseases

By bringing about a marked improvement in patients’ chances of survival, TKIs “have revolutionized the management of chronic myeloid leukemia,” Dr. Sarlon added. But these treatments have side effects. The most common is high blood pressure, “an effect that attests to the efficacy of targeted therapies and that must be quickly treated” with antihypertensives.

It is well known that the targeted therapies cause the rise in blood pressure. What was unexpected, though, was the vascular toxicity seen with the latest generation of TKIs. “This is a real toxicity that we need to know about, detect, and manage,” said Dr. Sarlon.

The prevalence of arterial diseases induced by nilotinib, a second-generation TKI, can be as high as 10%. Single-center studies have indicated much higher numbers. In a small study that Dr. Sarlon and her team conducted at Marseille University Hospital, atherosclerotic-type arterial injuries were observed in more than 30% of patients treated with nilotinib.

Dr. Sarlon noted that the signs of arterial toxicity occurring with this treatment have not appeared in clinical trials. Observations of the real-life use of nilotinib led French and German teams to sound the alarm. They noticed that some patients treated for CML had developed claudication and progression to critical limb ischemia of the lower extremities.

Risk factors uncovered

The first retrospective analysis to explore this risk was carried out by a German team. They included 179 patients who received nilotinib and found that 11 (6.2%) developed severe and previously unrecognized lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that required invasive therapy. The mean time from initiation of nilotinib to the first PAD event was 105.1 weeks (range = 16-212 weeks).

The following have emerged as major risk factors for nilotinib-induced PAD: the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, age older than 60 years, and long duration of exposure to nilotinib. Some of these factors were confirmed in the more recent study conducted at Marseille University Hospital involving patients treated with nilotinib. According to other research, there seems to be a correlation between this risk and the dose administered.

In the case of ponatinib, the side effects are even more common – so much so that, a few months after this third-generation TKI was authorized, a warning was issued about its use. A long-term follow-up study reported a 28% prevalence of cardiovascular events, while arterial diseases were observed in 20% of cases after 1-2 years on the treatment.

In terms of pathophysiology, the Marseilles University Hospital study found that arterial injuries were associated with stenosis greater than 50% in almost half of cases. “The atheromatous plaques were found where they typically are,” with the carotid bulb being the most involved territory, according to the researchers. But they’re also found in other arteries – femoral, vertebral, even renal – “sometimes in patients without cardiovascular risk factors.”

One distinctive characteristic to keep in mind is that “lipid-rich atheromatous plaques appear very dark on imaging” and thus can go unnoticed during a Doppler ultrasound. And, Dr. Sarlon added, “surprisingly, the thickening can extend to the external carotid artery.”

Ankle-brachial index

Published last year, the first European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology present specific baseline risk-assessment and monitoring recommendations regarding patients treated with nilotinib and ponatinib. One suggests that a cardiovascular risk assessment be done every 3 months during the first year and every 6-12 months thereafter. This assessment would include such items as ECGs, blood pressure measurements, and lipid profile tests.

In addition, it is advised that every 6 months an ankle-brachial index test be performed to check for PAD. At Marseille University Hospital, a Doppler ultrasound is also done at each follow-up appointment to look for arterial plaques, “even for patients at low risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Sarlon. “It seems, above all, absolutely necessary that hematologists order an LDL-C test and, if needed, consider statin therapy,” all the while keeping in mind that “the target LDL-C level is 1 gram per liter.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – nilotinib (Tasigna) and ponatinib (Iclusig) – may cause atherosclerotic arterial diseases. This common side effect, which has even been seen in patients without cardiovascular risk factors, has gone unnoticed in clinical trials. So what can be done to prevent it?

Cardiologist Gabrielle Sarlon, MD, PhD, a professor at Marseille (France) University Hospital, offered her recommendations at the European Days of the French Society of Cardiology Conference 2023.

In the literature, we find many hypotheses that seek to explain why these drugs bring about the formation of atheromatous plaque. The findings of one French study led Dr. Sarlon to state, “I firmly believe that, in some patients, these treatments make LDL cholesterol go up.” This would be the main cause of the coronary and peripheral arterial diseases that are being seen.

Therefore, “LDL-C should start being monitored when the therapy starts, and a statin may have to be prescribed,” she said.

Arterial diseases

By bringing about a marked improvement in patients’ chances of survival, TKIs “have revolutionized the management of chronic myeloid leukemia,” Dr. Sarlon added. But these treatments have side effects. The most common is high blood pressure, “an effect that attests to the efficacy of targeted therapies and that must be quickly treated” with antihypertensives.

It is well known that the targeted therapies cause the rise in blood pressure. What was unexpected, though, was the vascular toxicity seen with the latest generation of TKIs. “This is a real toxicity that we need to know about, detect, and manage,” said Dr. Sarlon.

The prevalence of arterial diseases induced by nilotinib, a second-generation TKI, can be as high as 10%. Single-center studies have indicated much higher numbers. In a small study that Dr. Sarlon and her team conducted at Marseille University Hospital, atherosclerotic-type arterial injuries were observed in more than 30% of patients treated with nilotinib.

Dr. Sarlon noted that the signs of arterial toxicity occurring with this treatment have not appeared in clinical trials. Observations of the real-life use of nilotinib led French and German teams to sound the alarm. They noticed that some patients treated for CML had developed claudication and progression to critical limb ischemia of the lower extremities.

Risk factors uncovered

The first retrospective analysis to explore this risk was carried out by a German team. They included 179 patients who received nilotinib and found that 11 (6.2%) developed severe and previously unrecognized lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that required invasive therapy. The mean time from initiation of nilotinib to the first PAD event was 105.1 weeks (range = 16-212 weeks).

The following have emerged as major risk factors for nilotinib-induced PAD: the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, age older than 60 years, and long duration of exposure to nilotinib. Some of these factors were confirmed in the more recent study conducted at Marseille University Hospital involving patients treated with nilotinib. According to other research, there seems to be a correlation between this risk and the dose administered.

In the case of ponatinib, the side effects are even more common – so much so that, a few months after this third-generation TKI was authorized, a warning was issued about its use. A long-term follow-up study reported a 28% prevalence of cardiovascular events, while arterial diseases were observed in 20% of cases after 1-2 years on the treatment.

In terms of pathophysiology, the Marseilles University Hospital study found that arterial injuries were associated with stenosis greater than 50% in almost half of cases. “The atheromatous plaques were found where they typically are,” with the carotid bulb being the most involved territory, according to the researchers. But they’re also found in other arteries – femoral, vertebral, even renal – “sometimes in patients without cardiovascular risk factors.”

One distinctive characteristic to keep in mind is that “lipid-rich atheromatous plaques appear very dark on imaging” and thus can go unnoticed during a Doppler ultrasound. And, Dr. Sarlon added, “surprisingly, the thickening can extend to the external carotid artery.”

Ankle-brachial index

Published last year, the first European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology present specific baseline risk-assessment and monitoring recommendations regarding patients treated with nilotinib and ponatinib. One suggests that a cardiovascular risk assessment be done every 3 months during the first year and every 6-12 months thereafter. This assessment would include such items as ECGs, blood pressure measurements, and lipid profile tests.

In addition, it is advised that every 6 months an ankle-brachial index test be performed to check for PAD. At Marseille University Hospital, a Doppler ultrasound is also done at each follow-up appointment to look for arterial plaques, “even for patients at low risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Sarlon. “It seems, above all, absolutely necessary that hematologists order an LDL-C test and, if needed, consider statin therapy,” all the while keeping in mind that “the target LDL-C level is 1 gram per liter.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

Women across the world face high levels of financial burden from breast cancer, a new systematic review and analysis finds. While the burden of the disease is much higher in less-developed countries, about a third of women in Western nations like the United States say the disease has hurt their financial well-being.

When it comes to financial burden, patients with breast cancer are “a highly vulnerable patient population,” said study coauthor Kavitha Ranganathan, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an interview. “We need to be both strategic and comprehensive with our approach and use evidence-based methods to come up with these comprehensive solutions,” said Dr. Ranganathan, who noted that she’s hearing more from patients who face monetary hurdles.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers believe their analysis is the first to attempt to understand financial toxicity (FT) – excessive financial burden – in breast cancer on a global level. This turned out to be a challenge since there’s no standard way to measure FT.

One approach is to look at financial burden in terms of whether patients are suffering from “catastrophic expenditure,” Dr. Ranganathan said. “That’s what the World Bank and other top health and economic organizations have focused on. It means that the cost of care and – whatever it takes to get care – exceeds 10% of total annual household income.”

Another approach is more subjective and based on patient-reported outcomes, she said: “Are patients having to forgo basic subsistence needs like rent and food?”

For the report, researchers analyzed studies that use both approaches to measure FT from breast cancer. The studies came from high-income countries (n = 24, including 19 from the United States) and middle- and low-income countries (n = 10), and ranged in size from 5 to 2,445 subjects.

The analyzed studies were a range of cross-sectional (n = 26), prospective (n = 7), and retrospective designs (n = 1).

The authors pooled the data from 18 studies and estimated that the rate of patients with FT was 35.3% (14 studies, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (4 studies, 60.4%-90.0%) in the other countries.

The researchers also conducted a separate pooled analysis of only the U.S. studies (n = 11). It found that 34% (27%-43%) of subjects reported FT. The researchers also conducted a new analysis of Canada-only studies (n = 2) and found that 19% (9%-35%) reported FT.

The researchers weren’t able to provide insight into trends in FT in the United States prior to the period of the studies (2014-2021). But raw numbers suggest the percentage of patients facing financial challenges rose over that time, suggesting a possible increase in burden.

Previous research has suggested that breast cancer poses a higher financial burden than other chronic conditions. “Breast cancer care in particular may be associated with high FT given the need for screening and diagnosis, multidisciplinary care, and longitudinal follow-up,” the researchers write. They add that “notably, gender also affects financial security.”

As for limitations, the researchers report that they only analyzed studies in English, and there was a wide variation in approaches used to analyze FT. The analysis “did not account for different health care systems or control for health care–dedicated gross domestic product,” meaning that there’s no way to know for sure that rates were lower in nations with universal health care.

How could the new findings be useful? “They’re eye-opening for health policymakers. Whenever they see these numbers, they will say, ‘Wow, it is really a problem,’ and they’ll start thinking about solutions,” said study coauthor Rania A. Mekary, PhD, MSc, MSc, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston. “When you give them evidence-based data, then they will take it more seriously.”

The researchers call for interventions in several areas including education about early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, expansion of health care coverage, programs to help with nonmedical costs, and better resources for breast cancer care.

In an interview, Mary C. Politi, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said the new report is useful “because it examines financial hardship internationally. Some people wonder whether financial hardship is a U.S. problem because of our health care system, which often relies on insurance and a lot of cost-sharing between insurance and patients. However, financial toxicity is prevalent across countries.”

And, she said, “the study is also useful because it encourages us to measure financial hardship and burden in a more uniform way so we can better compare and pool studies.”

Dr. Politi noted that there are ways to help patients now. “Most hospitals and health centers have staff who can talk to patients about their bills. Sometimes, a payment plan can be set up to space out payments,” she said. “Health care teams can try to consolidate care for patients on the same day to reduce parking expenses or time off for work or child care. Sometimes, changing to less expensive but effective generic medications is an option.”

The study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, the Global Surgery Foundation, the Harvard Global Health Institute, the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, the Center for Surgery and Public Health, and the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery. Dr. Ranganathan and Dr. Mekary report no disclosures. One coauthor reported a patent (BREAST-Q) and codevelopment of QPROMS, owned by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Another author reports salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan through the collaborative quality initiative known as Michigan Social Health Interventions to Eliminate Disparities. Dr. Politi has no disclosures.

Women across the world face high levels of financial burden from breast cancer, a new systematic review and analysis finds. While the burden of the disease is much higher in less-developed countries, about a third of women in Western nations like the United States say the disease has hurt their financial well-being.

When it comes to financial burden, patients with breast cancer are “a highly vulnerable patient population,” said study coauthor Kavitha Ranganathan, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an interview. “We need to be both strategic and comprehensive with our approach and use evidence-based methods to come up with these comprehensive solutions,” said Dr. Ranganathan, who noted that she’s hearing more from patients who face monetary hurdles.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers believe their analysis is the first to attempt to understand financial toxicity (FT) – excessive financial burden – in breast cancer on a global level. This turned out to be a challenge since there’s no standard way to measure FT.

One approach is to look at financial burden in terms of whether patients are suffering from “catastrophic expenditure,” Dr. Ranganathan said. “That’s what the World Bank and other top health and economic organizations have focused on. It means that the cost of care and – whatever it takes to get care – exceeds 10% of total annual household income.”

Another approach is more subjective and based on patient-reported outcomes, she said: “Are patients having to forgo basic subsistence needs like rent and food?”

For the report, researchers analyzed studies that use both approaches to measure FT from breast cancer. The studies came from high-income countries (n = 24, including 19 from the United States) and middle- and low-income countries (n = 10), and ranged in size from 5 to 2,445 subjects.

The analyzed studies were a range of cross-sectional (n = 26), prospective (n = 7), and retrospective designs (n = 1).

The authors pooled the data from 18 studies and estimated that the rate of patients with FT was 35.3% (14 studies, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (4 studies, 60.4%-90.0%) in the other countries.

The researchers also conducted a separate pooled analysis of only the U.S. studies (n = 11). It found that 34% (27%-43%) of subjects reported FT. The researchers also conducted a new analysis of Canada-only studies (n = 2) and found that 19% (9%-35%) reported FT.

The researchers weren’t able to provide insight into trends in FT in the United States prior to the period of the studies (2014-2021). But raw numbers suggest the percentage of patients facing financial challenges rose over that time, suggesting a possible increase in burden.

Previous research has suggested that breast cancer poses a higher financial burden than other chronic conditions. “Breast cancer care in particular may be associated with high FT given the need for screening and diagnosis, multidisciplinary care, and longitudinal follow-up,” the researchers write. They add that “notably, gender also affects financial security.”

As for limitations, the researchers report that they only analyzed studies in English, and there was a wide variation in approaches used to analyze FT. The analysis “did not account for different health care systems or control for health care–dedicated gross domestic product,” meaning that there’s no way to know for sure that rates were lower in nations with universal health care.

How could the new findings be useful? “They’re eye-opening for health policymakers. Whenever they see these numbers, they will say, ‘Wow, it is really a problem,’ and they’ll start thinking about solutions,” said study coauthor Rania A. Mekary, PhD, MSc, MSc, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston. “When you give them evidence-based data, then they will take it more seriously.”

The researchers call for interventions in several areas including education about early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, expansion of health care coverage, programs to help with nonmedical costs, and better resources for breast cancer care.

In an interview, Mary C. Politi, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said the new report is useful “because it examines financial hardship internationally. Some people wonder whether financial hardship is a U.S. problem because of our health care system, which often relies on insurance and a lot of cost-sharing between insurance and patients. However, financial toxicity is prevalent across countries.”

And, she said, “the study is also useful because it encourages us to measure financial hardship and burden in a more uniform way so we can better compare and pool studies.”

Dr. Politi noted that there are ways to help patients now. “Most hospitals and health centers have staff who can talk to patients about their bills. Sometimes, a payment plan can be set up to space out payments,” she said. “Health care teams can try to consolidate care for patients on the same day to reduce parking expenses or time off for work or child care. Sometimes, changing to less expensive but effective generic medications is an option.”

The study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, the Global Surgery Foundation, the Harvard Global Health Institute, the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, the Center for Surgery and Public Health, and the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery. Dr. Ranganathan and Dr. Mekary report no disclosures. One coauthor reported a patent (BREAST-Q) and codevelopment of QPROMS, owned by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Another author reports salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan through the collaborative quality initiative known as Michigan Social Health Interventions to Eliminate Disparities. Dr. Politi has no disclosures.

Women across the world face high levels of financial burden from breast cancer, a new systematic review and analysis finds. While the burden of the disease is much higher in less-developed countries, about a third of women in Western nations like the United States say the disease has hurt their financial well-being.

When it comes to financial burden, patients with breast cancer are “a highly vulnerable patient population,” said study coauthor Kavitha Ranganathan, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an interview. “We need to be both strategic and comprehensive with our approach and use evidence-based methods to come up with these comprehensive solutions,” said Dr. Ranganathan, who noted that she’s hearing more from patients who face monetary hurdles.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers believe their analysis is the first to attempt to understand financial toxicity (FT) – excessive financial burden – in breast cancer on a global level. This turned out to be a challenge since there’s no standard way to measure FT.

One approach is to look at financial burden in terms of whether patients are suffering from “catastrophic expenditure,” Dr. Ranganathan said. “That’s what the World Bank and other top health and economic organizations have focused on. It means that the cost of care and – whatever it takes to get care – exceeds 10% of total annual household income.”

Another approach is more subjective and based on patient-reported outcomes, she said: “Are patients having to forgo basic subsistence needs like rent and food?”

For the report, researchers analyzed studies that use both approaches to measure FT from breast cancer. The studies came from high-income countries (n = 24, including 19 from the United States) and middle- and low-income countries (n = 10), and ranged in size from 5 to 2,445 subjects.

The analyzed studies were a range of cross-sectional (n = 26), prospective (n = 7), and retrospective designs (n = 1).

The authors pooled the data from 18 studies and estimated that the rate of patients with FT was 35.3% (14 studies, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (4 studies, 60.4%-90.0%) in the other countries.

The researchers also conducted a separate pooled analysis of only the U.S. studies (n = 11). It found that 34% (27%-43%) of subjects reported FT. The researchers also conducted a new analysis of Canada-only studies (n = 2) and found that 19% (9%-35%) reported FT.

The researchers weren’t able to provide insight into trends in FT in the United States prior to the period of the studies (2014-2021). But raw numbers suggest the percentage of patients facing financial challenges rose over that time, suggesting a possible increase in burden.

Previous research has suggested that breast cancer poses a higher financial burden than other chronic conditions. “Breast cancer care in particular may be associated with high FT given the need for screening and diagnosis, multidisciplinary care, and longitudinal follow-up,” the researchers write. They add that “notably, gender also affects financial security.”

As for limitations, the researchers report that they only analyzed studies in English, and there was a wide variation in approaches used to analyze FT. The analysis “did not account for different health care systems or control for health care–dedicated gross domestic product,” meaning that there’s no way to know for sure that rates were lower in nations with universal health care.

How could the new findings be useful? “They’re eye-opening for health policymakers. Whenever they see these numbers, they will say, ‘Wow, it is really a problem,’ and they’ll start thinking about solutions,” said study coauthor Rania A. Mekary, PhD, MSc, MSc, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston. “When you give them evidence-based data, then they will take it more seriously.”

The researchers call for interventions in several areas including education about early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, expansion of health care coverage, programs to help with nonmedical costs, and better resources for breast cancer care.

In an interview, Mary C. Politi, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said the new report is useful “because it examines financial hardship internationally. Some people wonder whether financial hardship is a U.S. problem because of our health care system, which often relies on insurance and a lot of cost-sharing between insurance and patients. However, financial toxicity is prevalent across countries.”

And, she said, “the study is also useful because it encourages us to measure financial hardship and burden in a more uniform way so we can better compare and pool studies.”

Dr. Politi noted that there are ways to help patients now. “Most hospitals and health centers have staff who can talk to patients about their bills. Sometimes, a payment plan can be set up to space out payments,” she said. “Health care teams can try to consolidate care for patients on the same day to reduce parking expenses or time off for work or child care. Sometimes, changing to less expensive but effective generic medications is an option.”

The study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, the Global Surgery Foundation, the Harvard Global Health Institute, the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, the Center for Surgery and Public Health, and the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery. Dr. Ranganathan and Dr. Mekary report no disclosures. One coauthor reported a patent (BREAST-Q) and codevelopment of QPROMS, owned by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Another author reports salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan through the collaborative quality initiative known as Michigan Social Health Interventions to Eliminate Disparities. Dr. Politi has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.