Lung Cancer

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The first guideline for definitive local therapy options in the treatment of oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has now been released.

The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.

Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.

“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.

The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
 

Key recommendations

Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.

Key recommendations include:

• The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
• Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
• For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
• For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
• Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.

Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”

“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.

The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”

This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

The first guideline for definitive local therapy options in the treatment of oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has now been released.

The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.

Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.

“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.

The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
 

Key recommendations

Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.

Key recommendations include:

• The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
• Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
• For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
• For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
• Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.

Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”

“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.

The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”

This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

The first guideline for definitive local therapy options in the treatment of oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has now been released.

The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.

Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.

“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.

The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
 

Key recommendations

Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.

Key recommendations include:

• The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
• Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
• For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
• For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
• Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.

Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”

“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.

The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”

This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

FROM AACR 2023

Systemic therapy prior to surgery has been slow to catch on in the treatment of patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), primarily out of concern that neoadjuvant therapy could delay surgery or render patients ineligible for resection.

That may change, however, in light of new data from the phase 3 AEGEAN trial.

AEGEAN showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy with durvalumab (Imfinzi) and chemotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival, compared with neoadjuvant placebo plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant placebo, and it did not affect patients’ ability to undergo surgery.

The event-free survival benefit among patients who received durvalumab translated to a 32% reduction in the risk of recurrence, recurrence precluding definitive surgery, or death, John V. Heymach, MD, reported in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a potential new treatment for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Heymach, chair of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The AEGEAN findings confirm the benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy that were first seen on a large scale in the Checkmate 816 study, which was reported at last year’s AACR annual meeting.

In Checkmate 816, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater likelihood of a pathologic complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

“I’m impressed by the fact that we now have a second study that shows the benefits of immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, along with several adjuvant studies,” the invited discussant, Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “There’s no doubt that in early lung cancer, resectable disease, immunotherapy is part of the equation.”

For the current study, Dr. Heymach and colleagues recruited 802 patients from 222 sites in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. The patients had NSCLC and were treatment-naive, regardless of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

After excluding patients with targetable EGFR/ALK alterations, the team randomly allocated 740 patients who had good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) to receive either neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy plus adjuvant immunotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Overall, 77.6% of patients in the treatment arm and 76.7% of patients in the placebo arm underwent surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

At the trial’s first planned interim analysis, for patients assigned to preoperative durvalumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and postoperative durvalumab, the 12-month event-free survival rate was 73.4%, compared with 64.5% for patients who received chemotherapy alone before and placebo after surgery (stratified P = .003902).

The other endpoint, pathologic complete response, was observed in 17.2% of patients in the durvalumab arm, vs. 4.3% in the control arm – a 13% difference (P = .000036). Major pathologic responses, a secondary efficacy endpoint, were seen in 33.3% and 12.3% of patients, respectively.

The benefits of durvalumab were consistent across all subgroups, including those based on age at randomization, sex, performance status, race, smoking, histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), disease stage, baseline PD-L1 expression, and planned neoadjuvant agent.

The safety profile of durvalumab plus chemotherapy was manageable, and the addition of durvalumab did not affect patients’ ability to complete four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Heymach said.

Are these data practice changing?

Dr. Herbst gave a “resounding ‘Yes.’ “

But while the AEGEAN protocol represents a new standard of care, it can’t yet be labeled the standard of care, Dr. Herbst explained.

Dr. Herbst emphasized that, because this regimen was not compared against the current standard of care, it’s “impossible to determine” whether this is indeed the new standard.

“The data are early, and additional maturity is needed to better understand the benefit of the extra adjuvant therapy, and we’ll await the survival results,” he said.

It will also be important to analyze why some patients have only minor responses with the addition of durvalumab and whether there are resistance mechanisms at play for these patients. That would be a great setting “to start to test new therapies in a personalized way,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Heymach and Dr. Herbst disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, which funded the study.
 

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

FROM AACR 2023

Systemic therapy prior to surgery has been slow to catch on in the treatment of patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), primarily out of concern that neoadjuvant therapy could delay surgery or render patients ineligible for resection.

That may change, however, in light of new data from the phase 3 AEGEAN trial.

AEGEAN showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy with durvalumab (Imfinzi) and chemotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival, compared with neoadjuvant placebo plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant placebo, and it did not affect patients’ ability to undergo surgery.

The event-free survival benefit among patients who received durvalumab translated to a 32% reduction in the risk of recurrence, recurrence precluding definitive surgery, or death, John V. Heymach, MD, reported in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a potential new treatment for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Heymach, chair of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The AEGEAN findings confirm the benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy that were first seen on a large scale in the Checkmate 816 study, which was reported at last year’s AACR annual meeting.

In Checkmate 816, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater likelihood of a pathologic complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

“I’m impressed by the fact that we now have a second study that shows the benefits of immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, along with several adjuvant studies,” the invited discussant, Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “There’s no doubt that in early lung cancer, resectable disease, immunotherapy is part of the equation.”

For the current study, Dr. Heymach and colleagues recruited 802 patients from 222 sites in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. The patients had NSCLC and were treatment-naive, regardless of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

After excluding patients with targetable EGFR/ALK alterations, the team randomly allocated 740 patients who had good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) to receive either neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy plus adjuvant immunotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Overall, 77.6% of patients in the treatment arm and 76.7% of patients in the placebo arm underwent surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

At the trial’s first planned interim analysis, for patients assigned to preoperative durvalumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and postoperative durvalumab, the 12-month event-free survival rate was 73.4%, compared with 64.5% for patients who received chemotherapy alone before and placebo after surgery (stratified P = .003902).

The other endpoint, pathologic complete response, was observed in 17.2% of patients in the durvalumab arm, vs. 4.3% in the control arm – a 13% difference (P = .000036). Major pathologic responses, a secondary efficacy endpoint, were seen in 33.3% and 12.3% of patients, respectively.

The benefits of durvalumab were consistent across all subgroups, including those based on age at randomization, sex, performance status, race, smoking, histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), disease stage, baseline PD-L1 expression, and planned neoadjuvant agent.

The safety profile of durvalumab plus chemotherapy was manageable, and the addition of durvalumab did not affect patients’ ability to complete four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Heymach said.

Are these data practice changing?

Dr. Herbst gave a “resounding ‘Yes.’ “

But while the AEGEAN protocol represents a new standard of care, it can’t yet be labeled the standard of care, Dr. Herbst explained.

Dr. Herbst emphasized that, because this regimen was not compared against the current standard of care, it’s “impossible to determine” whether this is indeed the new standard.

“The data are early, and additional maturity is needed to better understand the benefit of the extra adjuvant therapy, and we’ll await the survival results,” he said.

It will also be important to analyze why some patients have only minor responses with the addition of durvalumab and whether there are resistance mechanisms at play for these patients. That would be a great setting “to start to test new therapies in a personalized way,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Heymach and Dr. Herbst disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, which funded the study.
 

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

FROM AACR 2023

Systemic therapy prior to surgery has been slow to catch on in the treatment of patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), primarily out of concern that neoadjuvant therapy could delay surgery or render patients ineligible for resection.

That may change, however, in light of new data from the phase 3 AEGEAN trial.

AEGEAN showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy with durvalumab (Imfinzi) and chemotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival, compared with neoadjuvant placebo plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant placebo, and it did not affect patients’ ability to undergo surgery.

The event-free survival benefit among patients who received durvalumab translated to a 32% reduction in the risk of recurrence, recurrence precluding definitive surgery, or death, John V. Heymach, MD, reported in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a potential new treatment for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Heymach, chair of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The AEGEAN findings confirm the benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy that were first seen on a large scale in the Checkmate 816 study, which was reported at last year’s AACR annual meeting.

In Checkmate 816, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater likelihood of a pathologic complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

“I’m impressed by the fact that we now have a second study that shows the benefits of immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, along with several adjuvant studies,” the invited discussant, Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “There’s no doubt that in early lung cancer, resectable disease, immunotherapy is part of the equation.”

For the current study, Dr. Heymach and colleagues recruited 802 patients from 222 sites in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. The patients had NSCLC and were treatment-naive, regardless of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

After excluding patients with targetable EGFR/ALK alterations, the team randomly allocated 740 patients who had good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) to receive either neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy plus adjuvant immunotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Overall, 77.6% of patients in the treatment arm and 76.7% of patients in the placebo arm underwent surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

At the trial’s first planned interim analysis, for patients assigned to preoperative durvalumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and postoperative durvalumab, the 12-month event-free survival rate was 73.4%, compared with 64.5% for patients who received chemotherapy alone before and placebo after surgery (stratified P = .003902).

The other endpoint, pathologic complete response, was observed in 17.2% of patients in the durvalumab arm, vs. 4.3% in the control arm – a 13% difference (P = .000036). Major pathologic responses, a secondary efficacy endpoint, were seen in 33.3% and 12.3% of patients, respectively.

The benefits of durvalumab were consistent across all subgroups, including those based on age at randomization, sex, performance status, race, smoking, histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), disease stage, baseline PD-L1 expression, and planned neoadjuvant agent.

The safety profile of durvalumab plus chemotherapy was manageable, and the addition of durvalumab did not affect patients’ ability to complete four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Heymach said.

Are these data practice changing?

Dr. Herbst gave a “resounding ‘Yes.’ “

But while the AEGEAN protocol represents a new standard of care, it can’t yet be labeled the standard of care, Dr. Herbst explained.

Dr. Herbst emphasized that, because this regimen was not compared against the current standard of care, it’s “impossible to determine” whether this is indeed the new standard.

“The data are early, and additional maturity is needed to better understand the benefit of the extra adjuvant therapy, and we’ll await the survival results,” he said.

It will also be important to analyze why some patients have only minor responses with the addition of durvalumab and whether there are resistance mechanisms at play for these patients. That would be a great setting “to start to test new therapies in a personalized way,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Heymach and Dr. Herbst disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, which funded the study.
 

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.