As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.  

AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.

Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.

Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.

The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.

Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?

Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.

Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added.  

Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”

Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.

“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.

Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”

“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.

Potentially promising therapy

In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”

The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.

“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”

Phase 3 superiority trial

The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension. 

Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m².

In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.

At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).

Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).

Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.

“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.

“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.

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

Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.  

AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.

Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.

Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.

The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.

Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?

Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.

Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added.  

Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”

Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.

“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.

Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”

“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.

Potentially promising therapy

In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”

The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.

“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”

Phase 3 superiority trial

The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension. 

Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m².

In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.

At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).

Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).

Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.

“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.

“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.

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

Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.  

AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.

Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.

Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.

The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.

Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?

Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.

Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added.  

Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”

Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.

“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.

Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”

“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.

Potentially promising therapy

In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”

The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.

“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”

Phase 3 superiority trial

The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension. 

Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m².

In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.

At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).

Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).

Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.

“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.

“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.

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

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.

Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.

And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.

Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference. 

She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”  

Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”

A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’

Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.

SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times. 

Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.

The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.

The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.

Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”

“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert

Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.

Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.

Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.

The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.

Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked. 

Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction

There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.

His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.

With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels,  an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.

“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or more, or 27 kg/m² or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.

The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.

The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively

The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”

Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”

Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.

SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.

Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.

And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.

Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference. 

She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”  

Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”

A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’

Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.

SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times. 

Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.

The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.

The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.

Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”

“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert

Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.

Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.

Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.

The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.

Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked. 

Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction

There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.

His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.

With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels,  an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.

“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or more, or 27 kg/m² or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.

The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.

The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively

The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”

Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”

Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.

SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.

Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.

And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.

Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference. 

She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”  

Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”

A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’

Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.

SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times. 

Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.

The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.

The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.

Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”

“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert

Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.

Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.

Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.

The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.

Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked. 

Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction

There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.

His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.

With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels,  an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.

“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or more, or 27 kg/m² or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.

The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.

The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively

The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”

Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”

Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.

SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.

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

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.