AVAHO

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

courtesy of Dr. Tony Mok

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

courtesy of Dr. Tony Mok

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

courtesy of Dr. Tony Mok

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.

According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.

As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.

The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.

Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.

Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources. 

There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
 

Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence

Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.

While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.

Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.

These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.

Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.

Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.

These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence. 

He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.

The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk. 

Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.

Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.

Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

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

Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.

According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.

As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.

The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.

Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.

Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources. 

There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
 

Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence

Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.

While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.

Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.

These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.

Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.

Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.

These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence. 

He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.

The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk. 

Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.

Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.

Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

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

Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.

According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.

As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.

The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.

Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.

Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources. 

There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
 

Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence

Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.

While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.

Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.

These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.

Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.

Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.

These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence. 

He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.

The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk. 

Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.

Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.

Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

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

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Some vulnerable older patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer can benefit from chemotherapy, but only if they can tolerate enough cycles of treatment, according to results of the randomized phase 2 GIANT study.

METHODOLOGY:

Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.

To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.

Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.

The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.

Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
• When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
• Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
• Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.

IN PRACTICE:

• Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. 
• “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
• The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study. 

SOURCE:

The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

LIMITATIONS:

Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Some vulnerable older patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer can benefit from chemotherapy, but only if they can tolerate enough cycles of treatment, according to results of the randomized phase 2 GIANT study.

METHODOLOGY:

Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.

To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.

Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.

The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.

Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
• When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
• Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
• Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.

IN PRACTICE:

• Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. 
• “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
• The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study. 

SOURCE:

The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

LIMITATIONS:

Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Some vulnerable older patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer can benefit from chemotherapy, but only if they can tolerate enough cycles of treatment, according to results of the randomized phase 2 GIANT study.

METHODOLOGY:

Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.

To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.

Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.

The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.

Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
• When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
• Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
• Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.

IN PRACTICE:

• Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. 
• “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
• The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study. 

SOURCE:

The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

LIMITATIONS:

Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.