AVAHO

The use of surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival in oncology trials has been vigorously debated in the oncology community. 

In multiple studies, we have shown that the correlation of surrogate endpoints with overall survival has been weak and, in most cases, inadequate. However, others have made arguments against using overall survival as the gold standard endpoint for cancer drug trials. These arguments include claims that overall survival is not a feasible endpoint for pivotal cancer drug trials and that negative overall survival results may be unreliable.

In this column, we counter some of these arguments from the perspective of an oncologist who treats cancer and is engaged in oncology research and a patient advocate with lived experience of cancer.

Argument: Overall survival is not the only meaningful clinical endpoint. Response rates and progression-free survival also are important clinical endpoints because patients feel good when their tumor shrinks or they have more time without disease progression. Both situations can improve patients’ quality of life. 

Response: On the face of it, this argument sounds reasonable, but it treats response rates and progression-free survival as clinical endpoints rather than surrogate endpoints that need to be validated. A patient would surely welcome news that treatment has reduced the size of their tumor and would feel dismayed if the tumor is growing. However, these reactions rest on the belief that these changes signal recovery in the case of a shrinking tumor, or worsening symptoms in the case of a growing tumor, neither of which may be true. 

“Disease progression” and “progression-free survival” were developed as technical terms to signify whether a therapy in a phase 2 clinical trial was sufficiently promising to advance to phase 3. The terms were not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. In clinical trials, a progression event is defined as an increase in the sum of tumor diameters by more than 20%, or the appearance of a new lesion. These are both arbitrary benchmarks that in no way imply that a patient’s subjective experience of symptoms or their survival time would differ widely between a tumor growth of 19% vs 21%, or if a new, tiny lesion develops.

Of course, disease progression sometimes does affect a patient’s quality of life, but trials treat all progression events equally. An event in the brain that affects the patient’s ability to walk and an asymptomatic tumor growth in the lung from 1 cm to 1.3 cm are both considered disease progression in trials.

Patients care about progression-free survival because they mistakenly believe that an improvement will probably lead to improved overall survival or quality of life. But overall survival and quality of life can actually be affected detrimentally, despite progression-free survival gains, because the patient may experience treatment-related physical and financial toxicity without clinical benefit. Conversely, it is possible to have better overall survival and quality of life without any improvement in progression-free survival.

With response rates, the relationships to overall survival and quality of life are even weaker. Because progression-free survival and response rates do not represent clinical benefit, they cannot be considered clinical endpoints. They are surrogate endpoints that need to be validated.

A patient will reasonably welcome a treatment-related change that improves the prospect of living a longer life or enduring less suffering but should not be misled when these outcomes have not been demonstrated as being clinically beneficial.

Argument: It is not ethical to wait for overall survival when there is an unmet need.

Response: The phrase “unmet need” is used to represent the lack of effective treatment options for a particular condition. Regulators may expedite approval of a new drug that is intended to fulfil the need because waiting for overall survival may not seem ethical in these settings. 

In reality, however, the term is used inconsistently, both when the need is either questionable (the indication is indolent) or the need is real but one or more treatment options already exist. 

When the need for a drug with clinical benefit is genuinely unmet, presenting patients with just any drug is unethical; their need will continue to exist despite drug approvals if survival is not improved. In fact, approving ineffective drugs can impede the development of drugs that work.

Argument: Overall survival is not a practical endpoint for drug trials for rare cancers. 

Response: This argument has some practical validity because the low prevalence of a rare cancer may limit study recruitment opportunities. From an equity perspective, however, patients with rare cancers are no less deserving of treatments based on meaningful evidence of safety and efficacy than are patients with common cancers. Like any other patient with cancer, they should know those treatments have shown the potential for an overall survival or quality of life benefit before undergoing potentially toxic treatments. 

Several trials, such as FIRM-ACT, VIT-0910, AEWS0031, and rEECur, have shown that international collaboration makes randomized clinical trials with an endpoint of overall survival possible for most rare cancers. We support offering early access via accelerated approval when scientific evidence suggests a drug has potential benefit for patients, but the trial should be followed to confirm an overall survival benefit and the drug should be withdrawn if an overall survival benefit is lacking. 

Argument: The point of measuring overall survival is to ensure that the treatment does not worsen overall survival. 

Response: This argument is frequently made, even by regulators. However, unless a drug is tested in a justified noninferiority design trial where the aim is to determine whether it provides compensatory benefits — easier administration, lower cost, or fewer side effects than the alternative — the goal of new cancer drugs is to improve survival. Merely “not worsening survival” is incongruent with medicine’s fundamental goal of benevolence. All drugs have toxicities, some of which can be fatal. Recommending a treatment with toxicities because it did not worsen survival would harm patients and go against the Hippocratic Oath.

Argument: Overall survival in this trial was negative, but this was probably a false-negative finding. We expect future trials will be positive. 

Response: When a drug fails to improve overall survival, some experts will argue that it was a false-negative result and a future trial will be positive. For instance, to explain the negative overall survival findings in a 2020 confirmatory trial, the researchers cited a subgroup analysis in which the drug received accelerated approval based on early exploratory results. However, the subgroup analysis violated the statistical plan and raised the likelihood that the early trial’s favorable outcome was false-positive.

A second trend that increases the likelihood of false-positives is when the same anticancer medications are studied across multiple trials. If we run dozens of trials of the same drug, some of them will eventually be positive by chance alone. 

Dismissing a negative overall survival finding as a statistical artifact puts patients at risk because oncologists may continue to use the drug, despite it providing no discernable clinical benefit to patients. 

Argument: The overall survival was negative because of crossover so that patients in the control arm received the therapy at progression. 

Response: Highly effective drugs will continue to show overall survival gains despite crossover — that is, when patients in the control arm receive the experimental drug at the time of progression.

For example, a trial evaluating the addition of pertuzumab in first-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer allowed crossover and still showed a significant overall survival benefit. Another trial evaluating sunitinib vs placebo in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors showed a significant overall survival improvement despite 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossing over to sunitinib at progression.

However, in the SONIA trial, receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer did not improve survival and added toxicities compared with receipt of the same agents as second-line treatment.

If crossover negates an overall survival benefit, this implies that patients in the experimental arm who received the drug upfront and patients in control arm who get the drug only at progression have no difference in survival times. If the survival outcomes in the groups are similar, that is evidence that the new drug should be given only to those who need treatment at the time of progression and not to everyone upfront. 

Giving patients the drug at the time of progression would spare patients toxicities, preserve efficacy, and save health systems costs.

Argument: Although overall survival is negative in the confirmatory trial, the clinical practice guidelines recommend using the drug, and the guidelines should be followed.

Response: We cannot ignore results of a confirmatory trial just because the drug is already in the guidelines. Guidelines should be updated on the basis of the latest evidence, rather than clinical practice being dictated by outdated guidelines. When a drug given accelerated approval appears in the guidelines, the confidence level of the evidence should be rated low until confirmatory results are available. If a confirmatory trial shows that overall survival does not improve, the guidelines should be quickly updated. However, even if they are not, physicians should not just blindly follow the guidelines.

Furthermore, practitioners should be aware that members of oncology guidelines committees often have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, which the literature shows can bias guideline recommendations.

 

The Bottom Line

We believe that despite arguments put forward against relying on or measuring overall survival, it continues to be the most patient-centric marker of clinical benefit. Patients deserve to know that the cancer drugs their oncologists recommend will contribute to a longer or better life.

Bishal Gyawali, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology and Department of Public Health Sciences; Scientist, Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Affiliated Faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed the financial relationship by receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health. Sharon Batt, Cancer survivor and patient advocate; Adjunct professor, Department of Bioethics and Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival in oncology trials has been vigorously debated in the oncology community. 

In multiple studies, we have shown that the correlation of surrogate endpoints with overall survival has been weak and, in most cases, inadequate. However, others have made arguments against using overall survival as the gold standard endpoint for cancer drug trials. These arguments include claims that overall survival is not a feasible endpoint for pivotal cancer drug trials and that negative overall survival results may be unreliable.

In this column, we counter some of these arguments from the perspective of an oncologist who treats cancer and is engaged in oncology research and a patient advocate with lived experience of cancer.

Argument: Overall survival is not the only meaningful clinical endpoint. Response rates and progression-free survival also are important clinical endpoints because patients feel good when their tumor shrinks or they have more time without disease progression. Both situations can improve patients’ quality of life. 

Response: On the face of it, this argument sounds reasonable, but it treats response rates and progression-free survival as clinical endpoints rather than surrogate endpoints that need to be validated. A patient would surely welcome news that treatment has reduced the size of their tumor and would feel dismayed if the tumor is growing. However, these reactions rest on the belief that these changes signal recovery in the case of a shrinking tumor, or worsening symptoms in the case of a growing tumor, neither of which may be true. 

“Disease progression” and “progression-free survival” were developed as technical terms to signify whether a therapy in a phase 2 clinical trial was sufficiently promising to advance to phase 3. The terms were not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. In clinical trials, a progression event is defined as an increase in the sum of tumor diameters by more than 20%, or the appearance of a new lesion. These are both arbitrary benchmarks that in no way imply that a patient’s subjective experience of symptoms or their survival time would differ widely between a tumor growth of 19% vs 21%, or if a new, tiny lesion develops.

Of course, disease progression sometimes does affect a patient’s quality of life, but trials treat all progression events equally. An event in the brain that affects the patient’s ability to walk and an asymptomatic tumor growth in the lung from 1 cm to 1.3 cm are both considered disease progression in trials.

Patients care about progression-free survival because they mistakenly believe that an improvement will probably lead to improved overall survival or quality of life. But overall survival and quality of life can actually be affected detrimentally, despite progression-free survival gains, because the patient may experience treatment-related physical and financial toxicity without clinical benefit. Conversely, it is possible to have better overall survival and quality of life without any improvement in progression-free survival.

With response rates, the relationships to overall survival and quality of life are even weaker. Because progression-free survival and response rates do not represent clinical benefit, they cannot be considered clinical endpoints. They are surrogate endpoints that need to be validated.

A patient will reasonably welcome a treatment-related change that improves the prospect of living a longer life or enduring less suffering but should not be misled when these outcomes have not been demonstrated as being clinically beneficial.

Argument: It is not ethical to wait for overall survival when there is an unmet need.

Response: The phrase “unmet need” is used to represent the lack of effective treatment options for a particular condition. Regulators may expedite approval of a new drug that is intended to fulfil the need because waiting for overall survival may not seem ethical in these settings. 

In reality, however, the term is used inconsistently, both when the need is either questionable (the indication is indolent) or the need is real but one or more treatment options already exist. 

When the need for a drug with clinical benefit is genuinely unmet, presenting patients with just any drug is unethical; their need will continue to exist despite drug approvals if survival is not improved. In fact, approving ineffective drugs can impede the development of drugs that work.

Argument: Overall survival is not a practical endpoint for drug trials for rare cancers. 

Response: This argument has some practical validity because the low prevalence of a rare cancer may limit study recruitment opportunities. From an equity perspective, however, patients with rare cancers are no less deserving of treatments based on meaningful evidence of safety and efficacy than are patients with common cancers. Like any other patient with cancer, they should know those treatments have shown the potential for an overall survival or quality of life benefit before undergoing potentially toxic treatments. 

Several trials, such as FIRM-ACT, VIT-0910, AEWS0031, and rEECur, have shown that international collaboration makes randomized clinical trials with an endpoint of overall survival possible for most rare cancers. We support offering early access via accelerated approval when scientific evidence suggests a drug has potential benefit for patients, but the trial should be followed to confirm an overall survival benefit and the drug should be withdrawn if an overall survival benefit is lacking. 

Argument: The point of measuring overall survival is to ensure that the treatment does not worsen overall survival. 

Response: This argument is frequently made, even by regulators. However, unless a drug is tested in a justified noninferiority design trial where the aim is to determine whether it provides compensatory benefits — easier administration, lower cost, or fewer side effects than the alternative — the goal of new cancer drugs is to improve survival. Merely “not worsening survival” is incongruent with medicine’s fundamental goal of benevolence. All drugs have toxicities, some of which can be fatal. Recommending a treatment with toxicities because it did not worsen survival would harm patients and go against the Hippocratic Oath.

Argument: Overall survival in this trial was negative, but this was probably a false-negative finding. We expect future trials will be positive. 

Response: When a drug fails to improve overall survival, some experts will argue that it was a false-negative result and a future trial will be positive. For instance, to explain the negative overall survival findings in a 2020 confirmatory trial, the researchers cited a subgroup analysis in which the drug received accelerated approval based on early exploratory results. However, the subgroup analysis violated the statistical plan and raised the likelihood that the early trial’s favorable outcome was false-positive.

A second trend that increases the likelihood of false-positives is when the same anticancer medications are studied across multiple trials. If we run dozens of trials of the same drug, some of them will eventually be positive by chance alone. 

Dismissing a negative overall survival finding as a statistical artifact puts patients at risk because oncologists may continue to use the drug, despite it providing no discernable clinical benefit to patients. 

Argument: The overall survival was negative because of crossover so that patients in the control arm received the therapy at progression. 

Response: Highly effective drugs will continue to show overall survival gains despite crossover — that is, when patients in the control arm receive the experimental drug at the time of progression.

For example, a trial evaluating the addition of pertuzumab in first-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer allowed crossover and still showed a significant overall survival benefit. Another trial evaluating sunitinib vs placebo in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors showed a significant overall survival improvement despite 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossing over to sunitinib at progression.

However, in the SONIA trial, receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer did not improve survival and added toxicities compared with receipt of the same agents as second-line treatment.

If crossover negates an overall survival benefit, this implies that patients in the experimental arm who received the drug upfront and patients in control arm who get the drug only at progression have no difference in survival times. If the survival outcomes in the groups are similar, that is evidence that the new drug should be given only to those who need treatment at the time of progression and not to everyone upfront. 

Giving patients the drug at the time of progression would spare patients toxicities, preserve efficacy, and save health systems costs.

Argument: Although overall survival is negative in the confirmatory trial, the clinical practice guidelines recommend using the drug, and the guidelines should be followed.

Response: We cannot ignore results of a confirmatory trial just because the drug is already in the guidelines. Guidelines should be updated on the basis of the latest evidence, rather than clinical practice being dictated by outdated guidelines. When a drug given accelerated approval appears in the guidelines, the confidence level of the evidence should be rated low until confirmatory results are available. If a confirmatory trial shows that overall survival does not improve, the guidelines should be quickly updated. However, even if they are not, physicians should not just blindly follow the guidelines.

Furthermore, practitioners should be aware that members of oncology guidelines committees often have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, which the literature shows can bias guideline recommendations.

 

The Bottom Line

We believe that despite arguments put forward against relying on or measuring overall survival, it continues to be the most patient-centric marker of clinical benefit. Patients deserve to know that the cancer drugs their oncologists recommend will contribute to a longer or better life.

Bishal Gyawali, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology and Department of Public Health Sciences; Scientist, Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Affiliated Faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed the financial relationship by receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health. Sharon Batt, Cancer survivor and patient advocate; Adjunct professor, Department of Bioethics and Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival in oncology trials has been vigorously debated in the oncology community. 

In multiple studies, we have shown that the correlation of surrogate endpoints with overall survival has been weak and, in most cases, inadequate. However, others have made arguments against using overall survival as the gold standard endpoint for cancer drug trials. These arguments include claims that overall survival is not a feasible endpoint for pivotal cancer drug trials and that negative overall survival results may be unreliable.

In this column, we counter some of these arguments from the perspective of an oncologist who treats cancer and is engaged in oncology research and a patient advocate with lived experience of cancer.

Argument: Overall survival is not the only meaningful clinical endpoint. Response rates and progression-free survival also are important clinical endpoints because patients feel good when their tumor shrinks or they have more time without disease progression. Both situations can improve patients’ quality of life. 

Response: On the face of it, this argument sounds reasonable, but it treats response rates and progression-free survival as clinical endpoints rather than surrogate endpoints that need to be validated. A patient would surely welcome news that treatment has reduced the size of their tumor and would feel dismayed if the tumor is growing. However, these reactions rest on the belief that these changes signal recovery in the case of a shrinking tumor, or worsening symptoms in the case of a growing tumor, neither of which may be true. 

“Disease progression” and “progression-free survival” were developed as technical terms to signify whether a therapy in a phase 2 clinical trial was sufficiently promising to advance to phase 3. The terms were not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. In clinical trials, a progression event is defined as an increase in the sum of tumor diameters by more than 20%, or the appearance of a new lesion. These are both arbitrary benchmarks that in no way imply that a patient’s subjective experience of symptoms or their survival time would differ widely between a tumor growth of 19% vs 21%, or if a new, tiny lesion develops.

Of course, disease progression sometimes does affect a patient’s quality of life, but trials treat all progression events equally. An event in the brain that affects the patient’s ability to walk and an asymptomatic tumor growth in the lung from 1 cm to 1.3 cm are both considered disease progression in trials.

Patients care about progression-free survival because they mistakenly believe that an improvement will probably lead to improved overall survival or quality of life. But overall survival and quality of life can actually be affected detrimentally, despite progression-free survival gains, because the patient may experience treatment-related physical and financial toxicity without clinical benefit. Conversely, it is possible to have better overall survival and quality of life without any improvement in progression-free survival.

With response rates, the relationships to overall survival and quality of life are even weaker. Because progression-free survival and response rates do not represent clinical benefit, they cannot be considered clinical endpoints. They are surrogate endpoints that need to be validated.

A patient will reasonably welcome a treatment-related change that improves the prospect of living a longer life or enduring less suffering but should not be misled when these outcomes have not been demonstrated as being clinically beneficial.

Argument: It is not ethical to wait for overall survival when there is an unmet need.

Response: The phrase “unmet need” is used to represent the lack of effective treatment options for a particular condition. Regulators may expedite approval of a new drug that is intended to fulfil the need because waiting for overall survival may not seem ethical in these settings. 

In reality, however, the term is used inconsistently, both when the need is either questionable (the indication is indolent) or the need is real but one or more treatment options already exist. 

When the need for a drug with clinical benefit is genuinely unmet, presenting patients with just any drug is unethical; their need will continue to exist despite drug approvals if survival is not improved. In fact, approving ineffective drugs can impede the development of drugs that work.

Argument: Overall survival is not a practical endpoint for drug trials for rare cancers. 

Response: This argument has some practical validity because the low prevalence of a rare cancer may limit study recruitment opportunities. From an equity perspective, however, patients with rare cancers are no less deserving of treatments based on meaningful evidence of safety and efficacy than are patients with common cancers. Like any other patient with cancer, they should know those treatments have shown the potential for an overall survival or quality of life benefit before undergoing potentially toxic treatments. 

Several trials, such as FIRM-ACT, VIT-0910, AEWS0031, and rEECur, have shown that international collaboration makes randomized clinical trials with an endpoint of overall survival possible for most rare cancers. We support offering early access via accelerated approval when scientific evidence suggests a drug has potential benefit for patients, but the trial should be followed to confirm an overall survival benefit and the drug should be withdrawn if an overall survival benefit is lacking. 

Argument: The point of measuring overall survival is to ensure that the treatment does not worsen overall survival. 

Response: This argument is frequently made, even by regulators. However, unless a drug is tested in a justified noninferiority design trial where the aim is to determine whether it provides compensatory benefits — easier administration, lower cost, or fewer side effects than the alternative — the goal of new cancer drugs is to improve survival. Merely “not worsening survival” is incongruent with medicine’s fundamental goal of benevolence. All drugs have toxicities, some of which can be fatal. Recommending a treatment with toxicities because it did not worsen survival would harm patients and go against the Hippocratic Oath.

Argument: Overall survival in this trial was negative, but this was probably a false-negative finding. We expect future trials will be positive. 

Response: When a drug fails to improve overall survival, some experts will argue that it was a false-negative result and a future trial will be positive. For instance, to explain the negative overall survival findings in a 2020 confirmatory trial, the researchers cited a subgroup analysis in which the drug received accelerated approval based on early exploratory results. However, the subgroup analysis violated the statistical plan and raised the likelihood that the early trial’s favorable outcome was false-positive.

A second trend that increases the likelihood of false-positives is when the same anticancer medications are studied across multiple trials. If we run dozens of trials of the same drug, some of them will eventually be positive by chance alone. 

Dismissing a negative overall survival finding as a statistical artifact puts patients at risk because oncologists may continue to use the drug, despite it providing no discernable clinical benefit to patients. 

Argument: The overall survival was negative because of crossover so that patients in the control arm received the therapy at progression. 

Response: Highly effective drugs will continue to show overall survival gains despite crossover — that is, when patients in the control arm receive the experimental drug at the time of progression.

For example, a trial evaluating the addition of pertuzumab in first-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer allowed crossover and still showed a significant overall survival benefit. Another trial evaluating sunitinib vs placebo in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors showed a significant overall survival improvement despite 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossing over to sunitinib at progression.

However, in the SONIA trial, receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer did not improve survival and added toxicities compared with receipt of the same agents as second-line treatment.

If crossover negates an overall survival benefit, this implies that patients in the experimental arm who received the drug upfront and patients in control arm who get the drug only at progression have no difference in survival times. If the survival outcomes in the groups are similar, that is evidence that the new drug should be given only to those who need treatment at the time of progression and not to everyone upfront. 

Giving patients the drug at the time of progression would spare patients toxicities, preserve efficacy, and save health systems costs.

Argument: Although overall survival is negative in the confirmatory trial, the clinical practice guidelines recommend using the drug, and the guidelines should be followed.

Response: We cannot ignore results of a confirmatory trial just because the drug is already in the guidelines. Guidelines should be updated on the basis of the latest evidence, rather than clinical practice being dictated by outdated guidelines. When a drug given accelerated approval appears in the guidelines, the confidence level of the evidence should be rated low until confirmatory results are available. If a confirmatory trial shows that overall survival does not improve, the guidelines should be quickly updated. However, even if they are not, physicians should not just blindly follow the guidelines.

Furthermore, practitioners should be aware that members of oncology guidelines committees often have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, which the literature shows can bias guideline recommendations.

 

The Bottom Line

We believe that despite arguments put forward against relying on or measuring overall survival, it continues to be the most patient-centric marker of clinical benefit. Patients deserve to know that the cancer drugs their oncologists recommend will contribute to a longer or better life.

Bishal Gyawali, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology and Department of Public Health Sciences; Scientist, Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Affiliated Faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed the financial relationship by receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health. Sharon Batt, Cancer survivor and patient advocate; Adjunct professor, Department of Bioethics and Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

The analysis of 11,427 US Deparment of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital patients with multiple myeloma (MM) reveals that lymphopenia affects 53% of patients at diagnosis. The median overall survival was 2.7 years in patients with severely low absolute lymphocyte count vs 4.2 years in those with normal counts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 11,427 patients diagnosed with MM between 2000 and 2019 at VA medical centers using absolute lymphocyte count obtained closest to diagnosis and up to 2.5 years thereafter.
• Patients were stratified into three absolute lymphocyte count categories: Severely low (less than 1 × 10⁹/μL), low (1 × 10⁹/μL to 1.5 × 10⁹/μL), and normal (> 1.5 × 10⁹/μL).
• Analysis excluded patients with acute and chronic leukemias, aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, hairy cell leukemia, or myeloproliferative neoplasms before MM diagnosis.
• Follow-up duration extended from diagnosis until development of another hematologic malignancy, death, truncation date (15 years after diagnosis), or study end date.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lymphopenia was present in 53% of patients at MM diagnosis and was associated with inferior overall survival.
• Median overall survival for patients with severely low, low, and normal absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis was 2.7 years, 3.3 years, and 4.2 years, respectively (P < .001).
• Persistent or new development of lymphopenia during treatment and follow-up was linked to inferior overall survival.
• Standard induction therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone did not overcome inferior outcomes in patients with lymphopenia, showing median overall survival of 3.6 years, 4.6 years, and 5.7 years among patients with severely low, low, and normal baseline absolute lymphocyte count, respectively (P less than .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Because immune dysregulation and immunosenescence in the bone marrow microenvironment are reflected in the peripheral blood lymphocyte count and peripheral blood markers may, in turn, correlate with clinical features and outcome in MM, we sought to identify clinical features correlating with peripheral blood lymphopenia and evaluate absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis as a predictor of outcome in MM and in the context of standard induction treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Grace M. Ferri and Cenk Yildirim, Boston Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population consisted predominantly of male participants due to being conducted in the VA system. Additionally, researchers acknowledged that lymphopenia could not be exclusively attributed to MM, as other treatments common in older populations might contribute. The use of alkylating agents like cyclophosphamide and melphalan during treatment could also influence lymphopenia levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual-level data underlying this study are available to researchers with VA regulatory approval, consistent with VA policy.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The analysis of 11,427 US Deparment of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital patients with multiple myeloma (MM) reveals that lymphopenia affects 53% of patients at diagnosis. The median overall survival was 2.7 years in patients with severely low absolute lymphocyte count vs 4.2 years in those with normal counts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 11,427 patients diagnosed with MM between 2000 and 2019 at VA medical centers using absolute lymphocyte count obtained closest to diagnosis and up to 2.5 years thereafter.
• Patients were stratified into three absolute lymphocyte count categories: Severely low (less than 1 × 10⁹/μL), low (1 × 10⁹/μL to 1.5 × 10⁹/μL), and normal (> 1.5 × 10⁹/μL).
• Analysis excluded patients with acute and chronic leukemias, aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, hairy cell leukemia, or myeloproliferative neoplasms before MM diagnosis.
• Follow-up duration extended from diagnosis until development of another hematologic malignancy, death, truncation date (15 years after diagnosis), or study end date.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lymphopenia was present in 53% of patients at MM diagnosis and was associated with inferior overall survival.
• Median overall survival for patients with severely low, low, and normal absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis was 2.7 years, 3.3 years, and 4.2 years, respectively (P < .001).
• Persistent or new development of lymphopenia during treatment and follow-up was linked to inferior overall survival.
• Standard induction therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone did not overcome inferior outcomes in patients with lymphopenia, showing median overall survival of 3.6 years, 4.6 years, and 5.7 years among patients with severely low, low, and normal baseline absolute lymphocyte count, respectively (P less than .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Because immune dysregulation and immunosenescence in the bone marrow microenvironment are reflected in the peripheral blood lymphocyte count and peripheral blood markers may, in turn, correlate with clinical features and outcome in MM, we sought to identify clinical features correlating with peripheral blood lymphopenia and evaluate absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis as a predictor of outcome in MM and in the context of standard induction treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Grace M. Ferri and Cenk Yildirim, Boston Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population consisted predominantly of male participants due to being conducted in the VA system. Additionally, researchers acknowledged that lymphopenia could not be exclusively attributed to MM, as other treatments common in older populations might contribute. The use of alkylating agents like cyclophosphamide and melphalan during treatment could also influence lymphopenia levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual-level data underlying this study are available to researchers with VA regulatory approval, consistent with VA policy.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The analysis of 11,427 US Deparment of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital patients with multiple myeloma (MM) reveals that lymphopenia affects 53% of patients at diagnosis. The median overall survival was 2.7 years in patients with severely low absolute lymphocyte count vs 4.2 years in those with normal counts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 11,427 patients diagnosed with MM between 2000 and 2019 at VA medical centers using absolute lymphocyte count obtained closest to diagnosis and up to 2.5 years thereafter.
• Patients were stratified into three absolute lymphocyte count categories: Severely low (less than 1 × 10⁹/μL), low (1 × 10⁹/μL to 1.5 × 10⁹/μL), and normal (> 1.5 × 10⁹/μL).
• Analysis excluded patients with acute and chronic leukemias, aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, hairy cell leukemia, or myeloproliferative neoplasms before MM diagnosis.
• Follow-up duration extended from diagnosis until development of another hematologic malignancy, death, truncation date (15 years after diagnosis), or study end date.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lymphopenia was present in 53% of patients at MM diagnosis and was associated with inferior overall survival.
• Median overall survival for patients with severely low, low, and normal absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis was 2.7 years, 3.3 years, and 4.2 years, respectively (P < .001).
• Persistent or new development of lymphopenia during treatment and follow-up was linked to inferior overall survival.
• Standard induction therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone did not overcome inferior outcomes in patients with lymphopenia, showing median overall survival of 3.6 years, 4.6 years, and 5.7 years among patients with severely low, low, and normal baseline absolute lymphocyte count, respectively (P less than .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Because immune dysregulation and immunosenescence in the bone marrow microenvironment are reflected in the peripheral blood lymphocyte count and peripheral blood markers may, in turn, correlate with clinical features and outcome in MM, we sought to identify clinical features correlating with peripheral blood lymphopenia and evaluate absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis as a predictor of outcome in MM and in the context of standard induction treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Grace M. Ferri and Cenk Yildirim, Boston Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population consisted predominantly of male participants due to being conducted in the VA system. Additionally, researchers acknowledged that lymphopenia could not be exclusively attributed to MM, as other treatments common in older populations might contribute. The use of alkylating agents like cyclophosphamide and melphalan during treatment could also influence lymphopenia levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual-level data underlying this study are available to researchers with VA regulatory approval, consistent with VA policy.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen Inc.) with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen Inc.) for the treatment of certain adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Specifically, the combination therapy is indicated for those with KRAS G12C-mutated mCRC, as determined using an FDA-approved test, who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, according to the FDA notice. The FDA also approved the therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN GmbH) as a companion diagnostic device for identifying eligible patients.

Approval of sotorasib with panitumumab was based on findings from the randomized, open-label, controlled CodeBreaK 300 trial showing improved overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with sotorasib and panitumumab vs investigator’s choice of trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib, which are current standard-of-care options.

Median PFS was 5.6 months in 53 patients randomized to receive 960 mg of oral sotorasib once daily plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) panitumumab every 2 weeks, and 2 months in 54 patients randomized to receive standard-of-care therapy (hazard ratio, 0.48). The ORR was 26% vs 0% in the arms, respectively, and the duration of response in the sotorasib/panitumumab arm was 4.4 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed between the standard-of-care arm and a third arm with 53 patients who received 240 mg of oral sotorasib daily plus 6 mg/kg of IV panitumumab every 2 weeks.

Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the treatment arms in the final analysis, but the study was not statistically powered for OS.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving sotorasib/panitumumab were rash, dry skin, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. Common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, which occurred in two or more patients, included decreased magnesium, decreased potassium, decreased corrected calcium, and increased potassium.

The recommended dose of sotorasib is 960 mg given orally once daily and administered before the first panitumumab infusion. The recommended panitumumab dose is 6 mg/kg as an IV infusion every 14 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until sotorasib is withheld or discontinued, according to the full prescribing information.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.