STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

More than half of family physicians think that physicians in general are underpaid, but 50% said that in their own situations, they felt fairly paid given their work demands, based on data from Medscape’s annual Family Physician Compensation Report.

The report, based on data from 7,000 physicians across the United States, showed similarly that 50% of family physicians were happy with their pay, which put them about midway on a list of 29 specialties ranking happiness with pay, above some of the higher paid specialties including orthopedics and plastic surgery.

The report cited data from the Mercer consulting firm showing an increase of 3% in 2023 over 2022 earnings among physicians in the United States overall. The average annual earnings for family medicine physicians were near the bottom of a list of 29 specialties included in the report, but 90% said that potential pay was not a factor or a minor factor in choosing the specialty.

According to the report, 61% of family physicians reported taking no additional work to boost income, but 20% reported taking on additional medical-related work, and 6% reported non-medical-related work.

For most family physicians compensation for patient care remained approximately the same as previous years, and a majority said that neither competing physician practices nor other medical businesses (such as retail clinics or nonphysician practitioners) had an effect on their incomes (70% and 62%, respectively).

Although 54% of family practice physicians reported opportunities for incentive bonuses, these bonuses are generally based on a combination of clinical, economic, and experience factors, and are lower for primary care physicians than for specialists. The average bonus for a primary care physician in 2023 was $27,000 compared with an average bonus of $51,000 for a specialist, according to the report.

Overall, 32% of the family physicians reported gratitude from and relationships with patients as the most satisfying part of their jobs, followed by being good at their jobs by finding answers to medical questions and making diagnoses (24%), and making the world a better place (19%).
 

Why Money Still Matters

The relatively minor increase in earnings is “the minimum necessary to continue to attract talented individuals into family medicine,” Susan Kuchera, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The current report referenced a 2023 report of interviews with medical residents, and approximately half of residents overall said that potential earnings were influential in their decisions.

However, the current Medscape report does not reflect the debt burden held by most new physicians, said Dr. Kuchera, who was not involved in the report. “The educational debt and long years of training can be a deterrent for some to choose a lower paying specialty like primary care; if we want to continue to provide our communities with primary care specialists, we need to keep pace with other areas of medicine,” she said.

“It takes a minimum of 7 years to train a primary care physician, we can’t lose sight over time of the factors that impact a person’s choice to pursue primary care,” Dr. Kuchera said.
 

More Support Needed for Community-Based Care

The data from the report were not surprising, given that the work of primary care physicians is hard, but “historically undervalued” compared with procedural medicine, Dr. Kuchera said. With more emphasis on the value of healthy communities, “we will realize that the relationship family physicians have with their communities is paramount to creating a healthy society,” she added.

The fact that patient care accounts for more than 75% of what family doctors feel to be most rewarding in their profession reflects that most do this work because longitudinal care of patients and communities is rewarding, Dr. Kuchera said in an interview.

“Employers need to value the special training of family doctors to take care of communities,” Dr. Kuchera said. This includes finding ways to incentivize value-based care and to provide the necessary resources to care for communities with poor social determinants of health, she added.

Dr. Kuchera had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More than half of family physicians think that physicians in general are underpaid, but 50% said that in their own situations, they felt fairly paid given their work demands, based on data from Medscape’s annual Family Physician Compensation Report.

The report, based on data from 7,000 physicians across the United States, showed similarly that 50% of family physicians were happy with their pay, which put them about midway on a list of 29 specialties ranking happiness with pay, above some of the higher paid specialties including orthopedics and plastic surgery.

The report cited data from the Mercer consulting firm showing an increase of 3% in 2023 over 2022 earnings among physicians in the United States overall. The average annual earnings for family medicine physicians were near the bottom of a list of 29 specialties included in the report, but 90% said that potential pay was not a factor or a minor factor in choosing the specialty.

According to the report, 61% of family physicians reported taking no additional work to boost income, but 20% reported taking on additional medical-related work, and 6% reported non-medical-related work.

For most family physicians compensation for patient care remained approximately the same as previous years, and a majority said that neither competing physician practices nor other medical businesses (such as retail clinics or nonphysician practitioners) had an effect on their incomes (70% and 62%, respectively).

Although 54% of family practice physicians reported opportunities for incentive bonuses, these bonuses are generally based on a combination of clinical, economic, and experience factors, and are lower for primary care physicians than for specialists. The average bonus for a primary care physician in 2023 was $27,000 compared with an average bonus of $51,000 for a specialist, according to the report.

Overall, 32% of the family physicians reported gratitude from and relationships with patients as the most satisfying part of their jobs, followed by being good at their jobs by finding answers to medical questions and making diagnoses (24%), and making the world a better place (19%).
 

Why Money Still Matters

The relatively minor increase in earnings is “the minimum necessary to continue to attract talented individuals into family medicine,” Susan Kuchera, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The current report referenced a 2023 report of interviews with medical residents, and approximately half of residents overall said that potential earnings were influential in their decisions.

However, the current Medscape report does not reflect the debt burden held by most new physicians, said Dr. Kuchera, who was not involved in the report. “The educational debt and long years of training can be a deterrent for some to choose a lower paying specialty like primary care; if we want to continue to provide our communities with primary care specialists, we need to keep pace with other areas of medicine,” she said.

“It takes a minimum of 7 years to train a primary care physician, we can’t lose sight over time of the factors that impact a person’s choice to pursue primary care,” Dr. Kuchera said.
 

More Support Needed for Community-Based Care

The data from the report were not surprising, given that the work of primary care physicians is hard, but “historically undervalued” compared with procedural medicine, Dr. Kuchera said. With more emphasis on the value of healthy communities, “we will realize that the relationship family physicians have with their communities is paramount to creating a healthy society,” she added.

The fact that patient care accounts for more than 75% of what family doctors feel to be most rewarding in their profession reflects that most do this work because longitudinal care of patients and communities is rewarding, Dr. Kuchera said in an interview.

“Employers need to value the special training of family doctors to take care of communities,” Dr. Kuchera said. This includes finding ways to incentivize value-based care and to provide the necessary resources to care for communities with poor social determinants of health, she added.

Dr. Kuchera had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More than half of family physicians think that physicians in general are underpaid, but 50% said that in their own situations, they felt fairly paid given their work demands, based on data from Medscape’s annual Family Physician Compensation Report.

The report, based on data from 7,000 physicians across the United States, showed similarly that 50% of family physicians were happy with their pay, which put them about midway on a list of 29 specialties ranking happiness with pay, above some of the higher paid specialties including orthopedics and plastic surgery.

The report cited data from the Mercer consulting firm showing an increase of 3% in 2023 over 2022 earnings among physicians in the United States overall. The average annual earnings for family medicine physicians were near the bottom of a list of 29 specialties included in the report, but 90% said that potential pay was not a factor or a minor factor in choosing the specialty.

According to the report, 61% of family physicians reported taking no additional work to boost income, but 20% reported taking on additional medical-related work, and 6% reported non-medical-related work.

For most family physicians compensation for patient care remained approximately the same as previous years, and a majority said that neither competing physician practices nor other medical businesses (such as retail clinics or nonphysician practitioners) had an effect on their incomes (70% and 62%, respectively).

Although 54% of family practice physicians reported opportunities for incentive bonuses, these bonuses are generally based on a combination of clinical, economic, and experience factors, and are lower for primary care physicians than for specialists. The average bonus for a primary care physician in 2023 was $27,000 compared with an average bonus of $51,000 for a specialist, according to the report.

Overall, 32% of the family physicians reported gratitude from and relationships with patients as the most satisfying part of their jobs, followed by being good at their jobs by finding answers to medical questions and making diagnoses (24%), and making the world a better place (19%).
 

Why Money Still Matters

The relatively minor increase in earnings is “the minimum necessary to continue to attract talented individuals into family medicine,” Susan Kuchera, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The current report referenced a 2023 report of interviews with medical residents, and approximately half of residents overall said that potential earnings were influential in their decisions.

However, the current Medscape report does not reflect the debt burden held by most new physicians, said Dr. Kuchera, who was not involved in the report. “The educational debt and long years of training can be a deterrent for some to choose a lower paying specialty like primary care; if we want to continue to provide our communities with primary care specialists, we need to keep pace with other areas of medicine,” she said.

“It takes a minimum of 7 years to train a primary care physician, we can’t lose sight over time of the factors that impact a person’s choice to pursue primary care,” Dr. Kuchera said.
 

More Support Needed for Community-Based Care

The data from the report were not surprising, given that the work of primary care physicians is hard, but “historically undervalued” compared with procedural medicine, Dr. Kuchera said. With more emphasis on the value of healthy communities, “we will realize that the relationship family physicians have with their communities is paramount to creating a healthy society,” she added.

The fact that patient care accounts for more than 75% of what family doctors feel to be most rewarding in their profession reflects that most do this work because longitudinal care of patients and communities is rewarding, Dr. Kuchera said in an interview.

“Employers need to value the special training of family doctors to take care of communities,” Dr. Kuchera said. This includes finding ways to incentivize value-based care and to provide the necessary resources to care for communities with poor social determinants of health, she added.

Dr. Kuchera had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .