AVAHO

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) – previously considered among the most rapidly fatal forms of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) – now show survival rates exceeding 90% at 10 years after treatment with a chemotherapy-free regimen of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO), with a survival advantage over ATRA plus chemotherapy in low- and intermediate-risk patients.

“In a large cohort of patients with APL, the chemo-free combination of ATRA/ATO is confirmed as the best treatment option, prolonging overall and event-free survival and reducing the relapse rate compared with ATRA/chemotherapy,” said first author Maria Teresa Voso, MD, of Tor Vergata University, in Rome, in presenting the findings at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

APL, though rare, makes up about 10% of new AML cases, and the advent of the chemo-free ATRA-ATO regimen in recent years has transformed the disease, significantly improving survival.

However, with ongoing questions regarding factors associated with treatment benefits based on issues including the level of risk, Dr. Voso and colleagues turned to data from the large European Union–funded HARMONY registry, a big data project that uniquely provides real-world as well as clinical trial findings from diverse APL patient populations.

They identified 937 patients in the registry with newly diagnosed APL between 2007 and 2020 who met the study’s data quality criteria, including 536 (57.2%) patients from two clinical trials, the UK AML-17 and GIMEMA APL0406 trials, and 401 (42.8%) patients from national registries in 6 countries, representing real-world data.

The median duration of follow-up was 5.66 years, with a range of 0-14 years.

The patients had an average age of about 50, which is consistent with the lower age of diagnosis typical of APL, compared with other forms of AML.

Among them, 380 (40.6%) were treated with the ATRA-ATO regimen while 509 (54.3%) received the chemotherapy combination of ATRA-Idarubicin (AIDA).

Overall, 37.8% were determined to be low risk, as assessed by the Sanz risk-score; 42.3% were intermediate risk, and 18.7% were considered high risk. The rate of complete remission among the patients was 87.5%, and 9% had relapsed.

The results showed the 10-year overall survival (OS) rate to be 92% among the chemo-free ATRA-ATO-treated patients versus 75% in the AIDA-treated patients (P = .001).

Likewise, those treated with the chemo-free regimen had a higher event-free survival and a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) versus chemotherapy over 10 years (P < .001 for both).

In further stratifying by risk, patients who were low risk also had greater improvements with the chemo-free regimen in overall survival (P = .004), event-free survival, and CIR versus AIDA treatment (P < .001).

Among high-risk patients, however, only event-free survival was significantly improved in the chemo-free treated patients (P = .046).

Older age stood out as a significant determinant of survival, with patients in the age 50-69 and 70 or over age groups having a significantly lower rate of overall survival and event-free survival, compared with those under 50 years of age (P < .001), with those risks observed regardless of treatment type.

Age was not a significant factor in terms of the incidence of relapse (P = .159).
 

Clinical trial versus real-world outcomes

Of note, improved outcomes were reported in clinical trials versus real-world data, with overall survival higher in clinical trials among patients receiving the ATRA/ATO chemo-free treatment (P = .025), as well as in those receiving the AIDA chemotherapy (P < .001).

Early death, an uncommon but key concern with APL, usually due to bleeding complications and defined as death occurring within 30 days from APL diagnosis, occurred among 56 patients, or 5.9%, overall, and was significantly higher in the age 50-69 and over 70 groups versus those under 50 (P < .001).

Early death was more common among those with a Sanz high-risk score (15.4%), compared with low or intermediate risk (3.9%; P < .001); however, the risk was no different between the chemo-free (3.4%) and chemotherapy (5.7%) groups, regardless of whether patients had a low or high risk.

The rates of early death were significantly higher in the real-world population (10.2%), compared with patients in clinical trials (2.8%; P < .001), which Dr. Voso noted may be expected, as early deaths in some cases can occur even before a diagnosis is made.

“These patients sometimes come to the ER and if a diagnosis is not made, they may die before even receiving treatment,” she said in a press briefing.

“Indeed, the median time to death among those who had early death in the study was only 10 days, and there were even some patients dying at day 0,” she explained.

“So, it’s very important that not only hematologists but emergency doctors recognize this disease and try to reduce the early death rate.”

Overall, the results all remained consistent after adjustment in a multivariate analysis, Dr. Voso said.

“The multivariate analysis confirmed that increasing age, high Sanz risk score, the real-life treatment scenario, and the chemotherapy-based approach are independently associated with decreased survival,” she said.

The findings underscore that “elderly age and high Sanz risk score significantly impact on the rate of early deaths, irrespective of treatment,” Dr. Voso said.
 

ATRA/ATO ‘gold standard’ for low/intermediate risk

Commenting on the study, Alessandro Isidori, MD, PhD, a hematologist at AORMN Hospital, in Pesaro, Italy, who moderated the session, noted that the study underscores the greater challenges with higher-risk patients.

“The study did not show a statistical benefit for high-risk patients receiving ATRA/ATO versus AIDA,” he told this news organization, noting that “currently, there are many countries where ATRA/ATO is not approved for use in high-risk APL.”

“In high-risk APL, the AIDA combination should still be preferred to ATRA/ATO,” he said.

Dr. Isidori recommended careful efforts to stratify higher-risk patients who still may benefit from ATRA/ATO.

“The analysis of high-risk patients with white blood cell count as a continuous variable instead of a fixed variable (more or less than 10,000/mmc) may help to discriminate some high-risk patients who could benefit from ATRA/ATO,” he noted.

Overall, however, “ATRA/ATO is the gold standard for low and intermediate risk APL,” he said.

“Although promising, more data are needed to confirm the efficacy of ATRA/ATO in high-risk APL.”

Dr. Voso disclosed ties with companies including Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Isidori reported no disclosures.
 

Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) – previously considered among the most rapidly fatal forms of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) – now show survival rates exceeding 90% at 10 years after treatment with a chemotherapy-free regimen of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO), with a survival advantage over ATRA plus chemotherapy in low- and intermediate-risk patients.

“In a large cohort of patients with APL, the chemo-free combination of ATRA/ATO is confirmed as the best treatment option, prolonging overall and event-free survival and reducing the relapse rate compared with ATRA/chemotherapy,” said first author Maria Teresa Voso, MD, of Tor Vergata University, in Rome, in presenting the findings at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

APL, though rare, makes up about 10% of new AML cases, and the advent of the chemo-free ATRA-ATO regimen in recent years has transformed the disease, significantly improving survival.

However, with ongoing questions regarding factors associated with treatment benefits based on issues including the level of risk, Dr. Voso and colleagues turned to data from the large European Union–funded HARMONY registry, a big data project that uniquely provides real-world as well as clinical trial findings from diverse APL patient populations.

They identified 937 patients in the registry with newly diagnosed APL between 2007 and 2020 who met the study’s data quality criteria, including 536 (57.2%) patients from two clinical trials, the UK AML-17 and GIMEMA APL0406 trials, and 401 (42.8%) patients from national registries in 6 countries, representing real-world data.

The median duration of follow-up was 5.66 years, with a range of 0-14 years.

The patients had an average age of about 50, which is consistent with the lower age of diagnosis typical of APL, compared with other forms of AML.

Among them, 380 (40.6%) were treated with the ATRA-ATO regimen while 509 (54.3%) received the chemotherapy combination of ATRA-Idarubicin (AIDA).

Overall, 37.8% were determined to be low risk, as assessed by the Sanz risk-score; 42.3% were intermediate risk, and 18.7% were considered high risk. The rate of complete remission among the patients was 87.5%, and 9% had relapsed.

The results showed the 10-year overall survival (OS) rate to be 92% among the chemo-free ATRA-ATO-treated patients versus 75% in the AIDA-treated patients (P = .001).

Likewise, those treated with the chemo-free regimen had a higher event-free survival and a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) versus chemotherapy over 10 years (P < .001 for both).

In further stratifying by risk, patients who were low risk also had greater improvements with the chemo-free regimen in overall survival (P = .004), event-free survival, and CIR versus AIDA treatment (P < .001).

Among high-risk patients, however, only event-free survival was significantly improved in the chemo-free treated patients (P = .046).

Older age stood out as a significant determinant of survival, with patients in the age 50-69 and 70 or over age groups having a significantly lower rate of overall survival and event-free survival, compared with those under 50 years of age (P < .001), with those risks observed regardless of treatment type.

Age was not a significant factor in terms of the incidence of relapse (P = .159).
 

Clinical trial versus real-world outcomes

Of note, improved outcomes were reported in clinical trials versus real-world data, with overall survival higher in clinical trials among patients receiving the ATRA/ATO chemo-free treatment (P = .025), as well as in those receiving the AIDA chemotherapy (P < .001).

Early death, an uncommon but key concern with APL, usually due to bleeding complications and defined as death occurring within 30 days from APL diagnosis, occurred among 56 patients, or 5.9%, overall, and was significantly higher in the age 50-69 and over 70 groups versus those under 50 (P < .001).

Early death was more common among those with a Sanz high-risk score (15.4%), compared with low or intermediate risk (3.9%; P < .001); however, the risk was no different between the chemo-free (3.4%) and chemotherapy (5.7%) groups, regardless of whether patients had a low or high risk.

The rates of early death were significantly higher in the real-world population (10.2%), compared with patients in clinical trials (2.8%; P < .001), which Dr. Voso noted may be expected, as early deaths in some cases can occur even before a diagnosis is made.

“These patients sometimes come to the ER and if a diagnosis is not made, they may die before even receiving treatment,” she said in a press briefing.

“Indeed, the median time to death among those who had early death in the study was only 10 days, and there were even some patients dying at day 0,” she explained.

“So, it’s very important that not only hematologists but emergency doctors recognize this disease and try to reduce the early death rate.”

Overall, the results all remained consistent after adjustment in a multivariate analysis, Dr. Voso said.

“The multivariate analysis confirmed that increasing age, high Sanz risk score, the real-life treatment scenario, and the chemotherapy-based approach are independently associated with decreased survival,” she said.

The findings underscore that “elderly age and high Sanz risk score significantly impact on the rate of early deaths, irrespective of treatment,” Dr. Voso said.
 

ATRA/ATO ‘gold standard’ for low/intermediate risk

Commenting on the study, Alessandro Isidori, MD, PhD, a hematologist at AORMN Hospital, in Pesaro, Italy, who moderated the session, noted that the study underscores the greater challenges with higher-risk patients.

“The study did not show a statistical benefit for high-risk patients receiving ATRA/ATO versus AIDA,” he told this news organization, noting that “currently, there are many countries where ATRA/ATO is not approved for use in high-risk APL.”

“In high-risk APL, the AIDA combination should still be preferred to ATRA/ATO,” he said.

Dr. Isidori recommended careful efforts to stratify higher-risk patients who still may benefit from ATRA/ATO.

“The analysis of high-risk patients with white blood cell count as a continuous variable instead of a fixed variable (more or less than 10,000/mmc) may help to discriminate some high-risk patients who could benefit from ATRA/ATO,” he noted.

Overall, however, “ATRA/ATO is the gold standard for low and intermediate risk APL,” he said.

“Although promising, more data are needed to confirm the efficacy of ATRA/ATO in high-risk APL.”

Dr. Voso disclosed ties with companies including Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Isidori reported no disclosures.
 

Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) – previously considered among the most rapidly fatal forms of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) – now show survival rates exceeding 90% at 10 years after treatment with a chemotherapy-free regimen of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO), with a survival advantage over ATRA plus chemotherapy in low- and intermediate-risk patients.

“In a large cohort of patients with APL, the chemo-free combination of ATRA/ATO is confirmed as the best treatment option, prolonging overall and event-free survival and reducing the relapse rate compared with ATRA/chemotherapy,” said first author Maria Teresa Voso, MD, of Tor Vergata University, in Rome, in presenting the findings at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

APL, though rare, makes up about 10% of new AML cases, and the advent of the chemo-free ATRA-ATO regimen in recent years has transformed the disease, significantly improving survival.

However, with ongoing questions regarding factors associated with treatment benefits based on issues including the level of risk, Dr. Voso and colleagues turned to data from the large European Union–funded HARMONY registry, a big data project that uniquely provides real-world as well as clinical trial findings from diverse APL patient populations.

They identified 937 patients in the registry with newly diagnosed APL between 2007 and 2020 who met the study’s data quality criteria, including 536 (57.2%) patients from two clinical trials, the UK AML-17 and GIMEMA APL0406 trials, and 401 (42.8%) patients from national registries in 6 countries, representing real-world data.

The median duration of follow-up was 5.66 years, with a range of 0-14 years.

The patients had an average age of about 50, which is consistent with the lower age of diagnosis typical of APL, compared with other forms of AML.

Among them, 380 (40.6%) were treated with the ATRA-ATO regimen while 509 (54.3%) received the chemotherapy combination of ATRA-Idarubicin (AIDA).

Overall, 37.8% were determined to be low risk, as assessed by the Sanz risk-score; 42.3% were intermediate risk, and 18.7% were considered high risk. The rate of complete remission among the patients was 87.5%, and 9% had relapsed.

The results showed the 10-year overall survival (OS) rate to be 92% among the chemo-free ATRA-ATO-treated patients versus 75% in the AIDA-treated patients (P = .001).

Likewise, those treated with the chemo-free regimen had a higher event-free survival and a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) versus chemotherapy over 10 years (P < .001 for both).

In further stratifying by risk, patients who were low risk also had greater improvements with the chemo-free regimen in overall survival (P = .004), event-free survival, and CIR versus AIDA treatment (P < .001).

Among high-risk patients, however, only event-free survival was significantly improved in the chemo-free treated patients (P = .046).

Older age stood out as a significant determinant of survival, with patients in the age 50-69 and 70 or over age groups having a significantly lower rate of overall survival and event-free survival, compared with those under 50 years of age (P < .001), with those risks observed regardless of treatment type.

Age was not a significant factor in terms of the incidence of relapse (P = .159).
 

Clinical trial versus real-world outcomes

Of note, improved outcomes were reported in clinical trials versus real-world data, with overall survival higher in clinical trials among patients receiving the ATRA/ATO chemo-free treatment (P = .025), as well as in those receiving the AIDA chemotherapy (P < .001).

Early death, an uncommon but key concern with APL, usually due to bleeding complications and defined as death occurring within 30 days from APL diagnosis, occurred among 56 patients, or 5.9%, overall, and was significantly higher in the age 50-69 and over 70 groups versus those under 50 (P < .001).

Early death was more common among those with a Sanz high-risk score (15.4%), compared with low or intermediate risk (3.9%; P < .001); however, the risk was no different between the chemo-free (3.4%) and chemotherapy (5.7%) groups, regardless of whether patients had a low or high risk.

The rates of early death were significantly higher in the real-world population (10.2%), compared with patients in clinical trials (2.8%; P < .001), which Dr. Voso noted may be expected, as early deaths in some cases can occur even before a diagnosis is made.

“These patients sometimes come to the ER and if a diagnosis is not made, they may die before even receiving treatment,” she said in a press briefing.

“Indeed, the median time to death among those who had early death in the study was only 10 days, and there were even some patients dying at day 0,” she explained.

“So, it’s very important that not only hematologists but emergency doctors recognize this disease and try to reduce the early death rate.”

Overall, the results all remained consistent after adjustment in a multivariate analysis, Dr. Voso said.

“The multivariate analysis confirmed that increasing age, high Sanz risk score, the real-life treatment scenario, and the chemotherapy-based approach are independently associated with decreased survival,” she said.

The findings underscore that “elderly age and high Sanz risk score significantly impact on the rate of early deaths, irrespective of treatment,” Dr. Voso said.
 

ATRA/ATO ‘gold standard’ for low/intermediate risk

Commenting on the study, Alessandro Isidori, MD, PhD, a hematologist at AORMN Hospital, in Pesaro, Italy, who moderated the session, noted that the study underscores the greater challenges with higher-risk patients.

“The study did not show a statistical benefit for high-risk patients receiving ATRA/ATO versus AIDA,” he told this news organization, noting that “currently, there are many countries where ATRA/ATO is not approved for use in high-risk APL.”

“In high-risk APL, the AIDA combination should still be preferred to ATRA/ATO,” he said.

Dr. Isidori recommended careful efforts to stratify higher-risk patients who still may benefit from ATRA/ATO.

“The analysis of high-risk patients with white blood cell count as a continuous variable instead of a fixed variable (more or less than 10,000/mmc) may help to discriminate some high-risk patients who could benefit from ATRA/ATO,” he noted.

Overall, however, “ATRA/ATO is the gold standard for low and intermediate risk APL,” he said.

“Although promising, more data are needed to confirm the efficacy of ATRA/ATO in high-risk APL.”

Dr. Voso disclosed ties with companies including Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Isidori reported no disclosures.
 

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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