User login
Oncology Mergers Are on the Rise. How Can Independent Practices Survive?
When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.
Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.
But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.
The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.
said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.
A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.
“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”
Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
A Growing Trend
The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.
A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.
The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.
While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.
“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.
Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.
Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.
Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.
Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.
The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.
The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.
Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.
“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.
Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.
Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?
Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.
“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.
Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.
Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.
In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.
Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
Navigating the Consolidation Trend
In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.
According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.
In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.
These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.
The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”
The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.
In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.
“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.
Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.
However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”
Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.
Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.
Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.
Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”
The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.
Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.
But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.
The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.
said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.
A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.
“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”
Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
A Growing Trend
The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.
A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.
The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.
While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.
“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.
Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.
Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.
Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.
Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.
The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.
The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.
Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.
“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.
Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.
Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?
Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.
“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.
Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.
Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.
In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.
Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
Navigating the Consolidation Trend
In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.
According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.
In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.
These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.
The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”
The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.
In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.
“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.
Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.
However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”
Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.
Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.
Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.
Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”
The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.
Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.
But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.
The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.
said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.
A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.
“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”
Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
A Growing Trend
The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.
A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.
The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.
While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.
“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.
Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.
Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.
Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.
Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.
The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.
The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.
Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.
“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.
Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.
Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?
Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.
“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.
Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.
Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.
In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.
Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
Navigating the Consolidation Trend
In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.
According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.
In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.
These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.
The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”
The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.
In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.
“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.
Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.
However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”
Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.
Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.
Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.
Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”
The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Platinum Add-On Improves Survival in Early TNBC
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
Inavolisib Added to Standard Tx Shows Sustained Benefit in Advanced BC
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
FROM ASCO 2024
Doctors Endorsing Products on X May Not Disclose Company Ties
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One Patient Changed This Oncologist’s View of Hope. Here’s How.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
Surviving to Thriving: Enhancing Quality of Life in Breast Cancer
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
FDA Expands Repotrectinib Label to All NTRK Gene Fusion+ Solid Tumors
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ovarian Cancer Risk Doubled by Estrogen-Only HRT
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM ASCO 2024
Are Children Born Through ART at Higher Risk for Cancer?
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
About 20% of Breast Cancer Survivors Gain Excess Weight
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2024