AVAHO

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

Treatment options for patients with cancer that is detected at a late stage are severely limited, which usually leads to an unfavorable prognosis for such patients. Indeed, the options available for patients with metastatic solid cancers are scarcely curative. Therefore, early diagnosis of neoplasia remains a fundamental mainstay for improving outcomes for cancer patients.

Histopathology is the current gold standard for cancer diagnosis. Biopsy is an invasive procedure that provides physicians with further samples to test but that furnishes limited information concerning tumor heterogeneity. Biopsy specimens are usually obtained only when there is clinical evidence of neoplasia, which significantly limits their usefulness in early diagnosis.

Around 20 years ago, it was discovered that the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in patients with metastatic breast cancer who were about to begin a new line of treatment was predictive of overall and progression-free survival. The prognostic value of CTC was independent of the line of treatment (first or second) and was greater than that of the site of metastasis, the type of therapy, and the time to metastasis after complete primary resection. These results support the idea that the presence of CTC could be used to modify the system for staging advanced disease.

Since then, research into liquid biopsy assays has expanded rapidly, and many biomarkers have been studied in various body fluids for their usefulness in assessing solid tumors.
 

Liquid vs. tissue

Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive tool that is easy to use. It is employed to detect cancer, to assess treatment response, or to monitor disease progression. Liquid biopsy produces test material from primary and metastatic (or micrometastatic) sites and provides a more heterogeneous picture of the entire tumor cell population, compared with specimens obtained with tissue biopsy.

Metastasis

The notion that metastatic lesions are formed from cancer cells that have disseminated from advanced primary tumors has been substantially revised following the identification of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of patients with early-stage disease. These results have led researchers to no longer view cancer metastasis as a linear cascade of events but rather as a series of concurrent, partially overlapping processes, as metastasizing cells assume new phenotypes while abandoning older behaviors.

The initiation of metastasis is not simply a cell-autonomous event but is heavily influenced by complex tissue microenvironments. Although colonization of distant tissues by DTC is an extremely inefficient process, at times, relatively numerous CTC can be detected in the blood of cancer patients (> 1,000 CTC/mL of blood plasma), whereas the number of clinically detectable metastases is disproportionately low, confirming that tumor cell diffusion can happen at an early stage but usually occurs later on.
 

Early dissemination

Little is currently known about the preference of cancer subtypes for distinct tissues or about the receptiveness of a tissue as a metastatic site. What endures as one of the most confounding clinical phenomena is that patients may undergo tumor resection and remain apparently disease free for months, years, and even decades, only to experience relapse and be diagnosed with late-stage metastatic disease. This course may be a result of cell seeding from minimal residual disease after resection of the primary tumor or of preexisting clinically undetectable micrometastases. It may also arise from early disseminated cells that remain dormant and resistant to therapy until they suddenly reawaken to initiate proliferation into clinically detectable macrometastases.

Dormant DTC could be the main reason for delayed detection of metastases. It is thought that around 40% of patients with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy present with biochemical recurrence, suggesting that it is likely that hidden DTC or micrometastases are present at the time of the procedure. The finding is consistent with the detection of DTC many years after tumor resection, suggesting they were released before surgical treatment. Nevertheless, research into tumor cell dormancy is limited, owing to the invasive and technically challenging nature of obtaining DTC samples, which are predominantly taken from the bone marrow.
 

CTC metastases

Cancer cells can undergo epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition to facilitate their detachment from the primary tumor and intravasation into the blood circulation (step 1). Dissemination of cancer cells from the primary tumor into circulation can involve either single cells or cell clusters containing multiple CTC as well as immune cells and platelets, known as microemboli. CTC that can survive in circulation (step 2) can exit the bloodstream (step 3) and establish metastatic tumors (step 4), or they can enter dormancy and reside in distant organs, such as the bone marrow.

Use in practice

CTC were discovered over a century ago, but only in recent years has technology been sufficiently advanced to study CTC and to assess their usefulness as biomarkers. Recent evidence suggests that not only do the number of CTC increase during sleep and rest phases but also that these CTC are better able to metastasize, compared to those generated during periods of wakefulness or activity.

CTC clusters (microemboli) are defined as groups of two or more CTC. They can consist of CTC alone (homotypic) or can include various stromal cells, such as cancer-associated fibroblasts or platelets and immune cells (heterotypic). CTC clusters (with or without leukocytes) seem to have greater metastatic capacity, compared with individual CTC.

A multitude of characteristics can be measured in CTC, including genetics and epigenetics, as well as protein levels, which might help in understanding many processes involved in the formation of metastases.

Quantitative assessment of CTC could indicate tumor burden in patients with aggressive cancers, as has been seen in patients with primary lung cancer.
 

Early cancer diagnosis

Early research into CTC didn’t explore their usefulness in diagnosing early-stage tumors because it was thought that CTC were characteristic of advanced-stage disease. This hypothesis was later rejected following evidence of local intravascular invasion of very early cancer cells, even over a period of several hours. This feature may allow CTC to be detected before the clinical diagnosis of cancer.

CTC have been detected in various neoplastic conditions: in breast cancer, seen in 20% of patients with stage I disease, in 26.8% with stage II disease, and 26.7% with stage III disease; in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, including stage I and II disease; and in prostate cancer, seen in over 50% of patients with localized disease.

The presence of CTC has been proven to be an unfavorable prognostic predictor of overall survival among patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer. It distinguishes patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from those with noncancerous pancreatic diseases with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96.3%.

CTC positivity scoring (appropriately defined), combined with serum prostate-specific antigen level, was predictive of a biopsy diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

All these data support the utility of CTC in early cancer diagnosis. Their link with metastases, and thus with aggressive tumors, gives them an advantage over other (noninvasive or minimally invasive) biomarkers in the early identification of invasive tumors for therapeutic intervention with better cure rates.
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment options for patients with cancer that is detected at a late stage are severely limited, which usually leads to an unfavorable prognosis for such patients. Indeed, the options available for patients with metastatic solid cancers are scarcely curative. Therefore, early diagnosis of neoplasia remains a fundamental mainstay for improving outcomes for cancer patients.

Histopathology is the current gold standard for cancer diagnosis. Biopsy is an invasive procedure that provides physicians with further samples to test but that furnishes limited information concerning tumor heterogeneity. Biopsy specimens are usually obtained only when there is clinical evidence of neoplasia, which significantly limits their usefulness in early diagnosis.

Around 20 years ago, it was discovered that the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in patients with metastatic breast cancer who were about to begin a new line of treatment was predictive of overall and progression-free survival. The prognostic value of CTC was independent of the line of treatment (first or second) and was greater than that of the site of metastasis, the type of therapy, and the time to metastasis after complete primary resection. These results support the idea that the presence of CTC could be used to modify the system for staging advanced disease.

Since then, research into liquid biopsy assays has expanded rapidly, and many biomarkers have been studied in various body fluids for their usefulness in assessing solid tumors.
 

Liquid vs. tissue

Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive tool that is easy to use. It is employed to detect cancer, to assess treatment response, or to monitor disease progression. Liquid biopsy produces test material from primary and metastatic (or micrometastatic) sites and provides a more heterogeneous picture of the entire tumor cell population, compared with specimens obtained with tissue biopsy.

Metastasis

The notion that metastatic lesions are formed from cancer cells that have disseminated from advanced primary tumors has been substantially revised following the identification of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of patients with early-stage disease. These results have led researchers to no longer view cancer metastasis as a linear cascade of events but rather as a series of concurrent, partially overlapping processes, as metastasizing cells assume new phenotypes while abandoning older behaviors.

The initiation of metastasis is not simply a cell-autonomous event but is heavily influenced by complex tissue microenvironments. Although colonization of distant tissues by DTC is an extremely inefficient process, at times, relatively numerous CTC can be detected in the blood of cancer patients (> 1,000 CTC/mL of blood plasma), whereas the number of clinically detectable metastases is disproportionately low, confirming that tumor cell diffusion can happen at an early stage but usually occurs later on.
 

Early dissemination

Little is currently known about the preference of cancer subtypes for distinct tissues or about the receptiveness of a tissue as a metastatic site. What endures as one of the most confounding clinical phenomena is that patients may undergo tumor resection and remain apparently disease free for months, years, and even decades, only to experience relapse and be diagnosed with late-stage metastatic disease. This course may be a result of cell seeding from minimal residual disease after resection of the primary tumor or of preexisting clinically undetectable micrometastases. It may also arise from early disseminated cells that remain dormant and resistant to therapy until they suddenly reawaken to initiate proliferation into clinically detectable macrometastases.

Dormant DTC could be the main reason for delayed detection of metastases. It is thought that around 40% of patients with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy present with biochemical recurrence, suggesting that it is likely that hidden DTC or micrometastases are present at the time of the procedure. The finding is consistent with the detection of DTC many years after tumor resection, suggesting they were released before surgical treatment. Nevertheless, research into tumor cell dormancy is limited, owing to the invasive and technically challenging nature of obtaining DTC samples, which are predominantly taken from the bone marrow.
 

CTC metastases

Cancer cells can undergo epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition to facilitate their detachment from the primary tumor and intravasation into the blood circulation (step 1). Dissemination of cancer cells from the primary tumor into circulation can involve either single cells or cell clusters containing multiple CTC as well as immune cells and platelets, known as microemboli. CTC that can survive in circulation (step 2) can exit the bloodstream (step 3) and establish metastatic tumors (step 4), or they can enter dormancy and reside in distant organs, such as the bone marrow.

Use in practice

CTC were discovered over a century ago, but only in recent years has technology been sufficiently advanced to study CTC and to assess their usefulness as biomarkers. Recent evidence suggests that not only do the number of CTC increase during sleep and rest phases but also that these CTC are better able to metastasize, compared to those generated during periods of wakefulness or activity.

CTC clusters (microemboli) are defined as groups of two or more CTC. They can consist of CTC alone (homotypic) or can include various stromal cells, such as cancer-associated fibroblasts or platelets and immune cells (heterotypic). CTC clusters (with or without leukocytes) seem to have greater metastatic capacity, compared with individual CTC.

A multitude of characteristics can be measured in CTC, including genetics and epigenetics, as well as protein levels, which might help in understanding many processes involved in the formation of metastases.

Quantitative assessment of CTC could indicate tumor burden in patients with aggressive cancers, as has been seen in patients with primary lung cancer.
 

Early cancer diagnosis

Early research into CTC didn’t explore their usefulness in diagnosing early-stage tumors because it was thought that CTC were characteristic of advanced-stage disease. This hypothesis was later rejected following evidence of local intravascular invasion of very early cancer cells, even over a period of several hours. This feature may allow CTC to be detected before the clinical diagnosis of cancer.

CTC have been detected in various neoplastic conditions: in breast cancer, seen in 20% of patients with stage I disease, in 26.8% with stage II disease, and 26.7% with stage III disease; in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, including stage I and II disease; and in prostate cancer, seen in over 50% of patients with localized disease.

The presence of CTC has been proven to be an unfavorable prognostic predictor of overall survival among patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer. It distinguishes patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from those with noncancerous pancreatic diseases with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96.3%.

CTC positivity scoring (appropriately defined), combined with serum prostate-specific antigen level, was predictive of a biopsy diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

All these data support the utility of CTC in early cancer diagnosis. Their link with metastases, and thus with aggressive tumors, gives them an advantage over other (noninvasive or minimally invasive) biomarkers in the early identification of invasive tumors for therapeutic intervention with better cure rates.
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment options for patients with cancer that is detected at a late stage are severely limited, which usually leads to an unfavorable prognosis for such patients. Indeed, the options available for patients with metastatic solid cancers are scarcely curative. Therefore, early diagnosis of neoplasia remains a fundamental mainstay for improving outcomes for cancer patients.

Histopathology is the current gold standard for cancer diagnosis. Biopsy is an invasive procedure that provides physicians with further samples to test but that furnishes limited information concerning tumor heterogeneity. Biopsy specimens are usually obtained only when there is clinical evidence of neoplasia, which significantly limits their usefulness in early diagnosis.

Around 20 years ago, it was discovered that the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in patients with metastatic breast cancer who were about to begin a new line of treatment was predictive of overall and progression-free survival. The prognostic value of CTC was independent of the line of treatment (first or second) and was greater than that of the site of metastasis, the type of therapy, and the time to metastasis after complete primary resection. These results support the idea that the presence of CTC could be used to modify the system for staging advanced disease.

Since then, research into liquid biopsy assays has expanded rapidly, and many biomarkers have been studied in various body fluids for their usefulness in assessing solid tumors.
 

Liquid vs. tissue

Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive tool that is easy to use. It is employed to detect cancer, to assess treatment response, or to monitor disease progression. Liquid biopsy produces test material from primary and metastatic (or micrometastatic) sites and provides a more heterogeneous picture of the entire tumor cell population, compared with specimens obtained with tissue biopsy.

Metastasis

The notion that metastatic lesions are formed from cancer cells that have disseminated from advanced primary tumors has been substantially revised following the identification of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of patients with early-stage disease. These results have led researchers to no longer view cancer metastasis as a linear cascade of events but rather as a series of concurrent, partially overlapping processes, as metastasizing cells assume new phenotypes while abandoning older behaviors.

The initiation of metastasis is not simply a cell-autonomous event but is heavily influenced by complex tissue microenvironments. Although colonization of distant tissues by DTC is an extremely inefficient process, at times, relatively numerous CTC can be detected in the blood of cancer patients (> 1,000 CTC/mL of blood plasma), whereas the number of clinically detectable metastases is disproportionately low, confirming that tumor cell diffusion can happen at an early stage but usually occurs later on.
 

Early dissemination

Little is currently known about the preference of cancer subtypes for distinct tissues or about the receptiveness of a tissue as a metastatic site. What endures as one of the most confounding clinical phenomena is that patients may undergo tumor resection and remain apparently disease free for months, years, and even decades, only to experience relapse and be diagnosed with late-stage metastatic disease. This course may be a result of cell seeding from minimal residual disease after resection of the primary tumor or of preexisting clinically undetectable micrometastases. It may also arise from early disseminated cells that remain dormant and resistant to therapy until they suddenly reawaken to initiate proliferation into clinically detectable macrometastases.

Dormant DTC could be the main reason for delayed detection of metastases. It is thought that around 40% of patients with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy present with biochemical recurrence, suggesting that it is likely that hidden DTC or micrometastases are present at the time of the procedure. The finding is consistent with the detection of DTC many years after tumor resection, suggesting they were released before surgical treatment. Nevertheless, research into tumor cell dormancy is limited, owing to the invasive and technically challenging nature of obtaining DTC samples, which are predominantly taken from the bone marrow.
 

CTC metastases

Cancer cells can undergo epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition to facilitate their detachment from the primary tumor and intravasation into the blood circulation (step 1). Dissemination of cancer cells from the primary tumor into circulation can involve either single cells or cell clusters containing multiple CTC as well as immune cells and platelets, known as microemboli. CTC that can survive in circulation (step 2) can exit the bloodstream (step 3) and establish metastatic tumors (step 4), or they can enter dormancy and reside in distant organs, such as the bone marrow.

Use in practice

CTC were discovered over a century ago, but only in recent years has technology been sufficiently advanced to study CTC and to assess their usefulness as biomarkers. Recent evidence suggests that not only do the number of CTC increase during sleep and rest phases but also that these CTC are better able to metastasize, compared to those generated during periods of wakefulness or activity.

CTC clusters (microemboli) are defined as groups of two or more CTC. They can consist of CTC alone (homotypic) or can include various stromal cells, such as cancer-associated fibroblasts or platelets and immune cells (heterotypic). CTC clusters (with or without leukocytes) seem to have greater metastatic capacity, compared with individual CTC.

A multitude of characteristics can be measured in CTC, including genetics and epigenetics, as well as protein levels, which might help in understanding many processes involved in the formation of metastases.

Quantitative assessment of CTC could indicate tumor burden in patients with aggressive cancers, as has been seen in patients with primary lung cancer.
 

Early cancer diagnosis

Early research into CTC didn’t explore their usefulness in diagnosing early-stage tumors because it was thought that CTC were characteristic of advanced-stage disease. This hypothesis was later rejected following evidence of local intravascular invasion of very early cancer cells, even over a period of several hours. This feature may allow CTC to be detected before the clinical diagnosis of cancer.

CTC have been detected in various neoplastic conditions: in breast cancer, seen in 20% of patients with stage I disease, in 26.8% with stage II disease, and 26.7% with stage III disease; in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, including stage I and II disease; and in prostate cancer, seen in over 50% of patients with localized disease.

The presence of CTC has been proven to be an unfavorable prognostic predictor of overall survival among patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer. It distinguishes patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from those with noncancerous pancreatic diseases with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96.3%.

CTC positivity scoring (appropriately defined), combined with serum prostate-specific antigen level, was predictive of a biopsy diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

All these data support the utility of CTC in early cancer diagnosis. Their link with metastases, and thus with aggressive tumors, gives them an advantage over other (noninvasive or minimally invasive) biomarkers in the early identification of invasive tumors for therapeutic intervention with better cure rates.
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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