AVAHO

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

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

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

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

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

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

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib (Talzenna, Pfizer) plus enzalutamide (Xtandi) to treat homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene–mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Talazoparib is already approved for adults with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The new approval, granted following priority review, is based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial, published in The Lancet.

The 399 patients in the study were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily plus either talazoparib 0.5 mg or placebo daily. Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the treatment group; it was 13.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.45). In an exploratory analysis by BRCA mutation status, patients with BRCA-mutated disease who received talazoparib exhibited an even stronger median radiographic PFS (HR, 0.20; not reached vs. 11 months) in comparison with those without BRCA-mutated disease (HR, 0.72; 24.7 vs. 16.7 months).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients who received talazoparib plus enzalutamide. The most common serious adverse reactions, reported in more than 2% of patients, included anemia (9%) and fracture (3%). Discontinuation of talazoparib occurred in 10% of patients, according to a Pfizer statement.

Pfizer also noted that a marketing authorization application for the drug combination has been accepted for review by the European Medicines Agency.

“Despite treatment advancement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the disease can progress quickly, and many patients may only receive one line of therapy,” lead investigator Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in a statement. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR genetic alterations have even worse outcomes, and thus the FDA’s approval of the talazoparib and enzalutamide combination “represents a treatment option deserving of excitement and attention.”

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

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

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

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

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

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

TOPLINE:

There may be no threshold dose below which radiation to cardiac substructures does not increase the risk for later cardiac diseases in children with cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 25,481 patients in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who had no cardiac complications in the first 5 years following cancer treatment from 1970 to 1999; nearly half (48.2%) had been exposed to radiotherapy.
• Radiation doses to the coronary arteries, heart chambers, heart valves, and whole heart were calculated based on radiotherapy records.
• Median age at follow up was 29.8 years and ranged from 5.6 to 65.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean radiation doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk for later cardiac disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio, 2.6) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2) did increase the risk for subsequent coronary artery disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4) increased the risk for later valvular disease.
• Linear modeling adequately described the dose-response relationship for many cardiac substructures, suggesting there is no threshold dose necessary for cardiac damage.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings solidify the need to consider cardiac substructure doses in [pediatric] radiation treatment planning and in survivorship care. Future work to ascertain optimal cardiac dose constraints, especially in the era of highly conformal [radiotherapy] techniques such as [intensity-modulated radiotherapy] and proton therapy, remains critical,” the authors concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by James Bates, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Chronic conditions were self-reported.

Current radiotherapy techniques are much more precise than in the decades when these cancer survivors were treated, allowing preferential sparing of various heart structures.

The study did not assess other treatments and lifestyle issues that may have affected heart health.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Investigators reported ties to Doximity, Abbott, Merck, Grail, and other companies.

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

TOPLINE:

There may be no threshold dose below which radiation to cardiac substructures does not increase the risk for later cardiac diseases in children with cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 25,481 patients in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who had no cardiac complications in the first 5 years following cancer treatment from 1970 to 1999; nearly half (48.2%) had been exposed to radiotherapy.
• Radiation doses to the coronary arteries, heart chambers, heart valves, and whole heart were calculated based on radiotherapy records.
• Median age at follow up was 29.8 years and ranged from 5.6 to 65.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean radiation doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk for later cardiac disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio, 2.6) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2) did increase the risk for subsequent coronary artery disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4) increased the risk for later valvular disease.
• Linear modeling adequately described the dose-response relationship for many cardiac substructures, suggesting there is no threshold dose necessary for cardiac damage.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings solidify the need to consider cardiac substructure doses in [pediatric] radiation treatment planning and in survivorship care. Future work to ascertain optimal cardiac dose constraints, especially in the era of highly conformal [radiotherapy] techniques such as [intensity-modulated radiotherapy] and proton therapy, remains critical,” the authors concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by James Bates, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Chronic conditions were self-reported.

Current radiotherapy techniques are much more precise than in the decades when these cancer survivors were treated, allowing preferential sparing of various heart structures.

The study did not assess other treatments and lifestyle issues that may have affected heart health.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Investigators reported ties to Doximity, Abbott, Merck, Grail, and other companies.

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

TOPLINE:

There may be no threshold dose below which radiation to cardiac substructures does not increase the risk for later cardiac diseases in children with cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 25,481 patients in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who had no cardiac complications in the first 5 years following cancer treatment from 1970 to 1999; nearly half (48.2%) had been exposed to radiotherapy.
• Radiation doses to the coronary arteries, heart chambers, heart valves, and whole heart were calculated based on radiotherapy records.
• Median age at follow up was 29.8 years and ranged from 5.6 to 65.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean radiation doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk for later cardiac disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio, 2.6) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2) did increase the risk for subsequent coronary artery disease.
• Mean doses of 5.0-9.9 Gy to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4) increased the risk for later valvular disease.
• Linear modeling adequately described the dose-response relationship for many cardiac substructures, suggesting there is no threshold dose necessary for cardiac damage.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings solidify the need to consider cardiac substructure doses in [pediatric] radiation treatment planning and in survivorship care. Future work to ascertain optimal cardiac dose constraints, especially in the era of highly conformal [radiotherapy] techniques such as [intensity-modulated radiotherapy] and proton therapy, remains critical,” the authors concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by James Bates, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Chronic conditions were self-reported.

Current radiotherapy techniques are much more precise than in the decades when these cancer survivors were treated, allowing preferential sparing of various heart structures.

The study did not assess other treatments and lifestyle issues that may have affected heart health.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Investigators reported ties to Doximity, Abbott, Merck, Grail, and other companies.

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