Key clinical point: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has low accuracy in predicting nodal status after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), suggesting that axillary findings on posttreatment breast MRI should not be used to plan surgical approach to the axilla.

Major finding: Overall, the accuracy of posttreatment breast MRI in predicting axillary nodal status ranged from 45.5% to 66.7%. The overall accuracy of MRI for predicting nodal status was similar among patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) vs. chemotherapy (66.7% vs. 50%; P = .1393).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 79 women with stage I-III ILC who underwent preoperative breast MRI after either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=46) or ET (n=33).

Disclosures: This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abel MK et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021 Mar 5. doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00233-9.

Key clinical point: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has low accuracy in predicting nodal status after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), suggesting that axillary findings on posttreatment breast MRI should not be used to plan surgical approach to the axilla.

Major finding: Overall, the accuracy of posttreatment breast MRI in predicting axillary nodal status ranged from 45.5% to 66.7%. The overall accuracy of MRI for predicting nodal status was similar among patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) vs. chemotherapy (66.7% vs. 50%; P = .1393).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 79 women with stage I-III ILC who underwent preoperative breast MRI after either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=46) or ET (n=33).

Disclosures: This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abel MK et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021 Mar 5. doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00233-9.

Key clinical point: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has low accuracy in predicting nodal status after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), suggesting that axillary findings on posttreatment breast MRI should not be used to plan surgical approach to the axilla.

Major finding: Overall, the accuracy of posttreatment breast MRI in predicting axillary nodal status ranged from 45.5% to 66.7%. The overall accuracy of MRI for predicting nodal status was similar among patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) vs. chemotherapy (66.7% vs. 50%; P = .1393).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 79 women with stage I-III ILC who underwent preoperative breast MRI after either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=46) or ET (n=33).

Disclosures: This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abel MK et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021 Mar 5. doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00233-9.

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of cutaneous adverse events (AEs) was low and manageable, rarely needing treatment cessation, in patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative breast cancer (HR+HER2−BC) receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The incidence of treatment-related cutaneous AEs was 14.2%, of which only 15.0% and 4.0% required temporary treatment suspension and discontinuation, respectively. The mean time to AE onset was 168 days (6 cycles) of treatment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 324 adult patients with advanced HR+HER2−BC who received oral palbociclib (mean treatment cycles, 9) and ET.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chawla S et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06169-9.

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of cutaneous adverse events (AEs) was low and manageable, rarely needing treatment cessation, in patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative breast cancer (HR+HER2−BC) receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The incidence of treatment-related cutaneous AEs was 14.2%, of which only 15.0% and 4.0% required temporary treatment suspension and discontinuation, respectively. The mean time to AE onset was 168 days (6 cycles) of treatment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 324 adult patients with advanced HR+HER2−BC who received oral palbociclib (mean treatment cycles, 9) and ET.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chawla S et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06169-9.

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of cutaneous adverse events (AEs) was low and manageable, rarely needing treatment cessation, in patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative breast cancer (HR+HER2−BC) receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The incidence of treatment-related cutaneous AEs was 14.2%, of which only 15.0% and 4.0% required temporary treatment suspension and discontinuation, respectively. The mean time to AE onset was 168 days (6 cycles) of treatment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 324 adult patients with advanced HR+HER2−BC who received oral palbociclib (mean treatment cycles, 9) and ET.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chawla S et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06169-9.

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in older patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2−) invasive breast cancer with multiple comorbidities.

Major finding: During median follow-up of 43.6 months, median OS was higher in patients who received ET vs. those who did not (79.2 months vs. 67.7 months; P less than .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, matched cohort analysis of 1,972 older patients (age, 70 years or more) with Charlson/Deyo comorbidity scores of 2 or 3 who received breast and axillary surgery for ER+/HER2−, pathologic node-negative breast cancer.

Disclosures: This work was partly supported by the National Cancer Institute. MS Karuturi reported support from Pfizer. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Tamirisa N et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33489.

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in older patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2−) invasive breast cancer with multiple comorbidities.

Major finding: During median follow-up of 43.6 months, median OS was higher in patients who received ET vs. those who did not (79.2 months vs. 67.7 months; P less than .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, matched cohort analysis of 1,972 older patients (age, 70 years or more) with Charlson/Deyo comorbidity scores of 2 or 3 who received breast and axillary surgery for ER+/HER2−, pathologic node-negative breast cancer.

Disclosures: This work was partly supported by the National Cancer Institute. MS Karuturi reported support from Pfizer. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Tamirisa N et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33489.

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in older patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2−) invasive breast cancer with multiple comorbidities.

Major finding: During median follow-up of 43.6 months, median OS was higher in patients who received ET vs. those who did not (79.2 months vs. 67.7 months; P less than .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, matched cohort analysis of 1,972 older patients (age, 70 years or more) with Charlson/Deyo comorbidity scores of 2 or 3 who received breast and axillary surgery for ER+/HER2−, pathologic node-negative breast cancer.

Disclosures: This work was partly supported by the National Cancer Institute. MS Karuturi reported support from Pfizer. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Tamirisa N et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33489.

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy as second- or third-line treatment did not improve overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared with chemotherapy.

Major finding: Median OS was similar with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score of 1 or more (10.7 months vs. 10.2 months; P = .073) or 10 or more (12.7 months vs. 11.6 months; P = .057). Dose modification, reduction, interruption, or withdrawal because of adverse events was lower in pembrolizumab (21%) vs. chemotherapy (45%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 trial including 622 patients with metastatic TNBC who underwent 1 or 2 previous treatments, experienced progression on most recent therapy, and received previous treatment with an anthracycline or taxane. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous pembrolizumab (n=312) or investigator-choice chemotherapy (n=310).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Source: Winer EP et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30754-3.

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy as second- or third-line treatment did not improve overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared with chemotherapy.

Major finding: Median OS was similar with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score of 1 or more (10.7 months vs. 10.2 months; P = .073) or 10 or more (12.7 months vs. 11.6 months; P = .057). Dose modification, reduction, interruption, or withdrawal because of adverse events was lower in pembrolizumab (21%) vs. chemotherapy (45%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 trial including 622 patients with metastatic TNBC who underwent 1 or 2 previous treatments, experienced progression on most recent therapy, and received previous treatment with an anthracycline or taxane. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous pembrolizumab (n=312) or investigator-choice chemotherapy (n=310).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Source: Winer EP et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30754-3.

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy as second- or third-line treatment did not improve overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared with chemotherapy.

Major finding: Median OS was similar with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score of 1 or more (10.7 months vs. 10.2 months; P = .073) or 10 or more (12.7 months vs. 11.6 months; P = .057). Dose modification, reduction, interruption, or withdrawal because of adverse events was lower in pembrolizumab (21%) vs. chemotherapy (45%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 trial including 622 patients with metastatic TNBC who underwent 1 or 2 previous treatments, experienced progression on most recent therapy, and received previous treatment with an anthracycline or taxane. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous pembrolizumab (n=312) or investigator-choice chemotherapy (n=310).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Source: Winer EP et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30754-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

Key clinical point: Among women with breast cancer and high clinical risk, a subgroup of patients with low genomic risk identified by the 70-gene signature showed excellent distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) even without chemotherapy. No benefits of chemotherapy were observed in women older than 50 years.

Major finding: Eight-year DMFS in patients with high clinical but low genomic risk with vs. without chemotherapy was 92.0% vs. 89.4%, with the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remaining small (absolute difference, 2·6 percentage points). Chemotherapy showed no benefits in older women aged more than 50 years (absolute difference, 0.2 percentage points).

Study details: Findings are from the 8-year analysis of phase 3 MINDACT trial, including women with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer with up to 3 positive lymph nodes. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) identified women with high clinical but low genomic risk who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=749) vs. no chemotherapy (n=748).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Commission Sixth Framework Programme (ECSFP). Some investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies including the ECSFP.

Source: Piccart M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3.

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

Key clinical point: Women vs. men with migraine had a higher frequency of self-reported neck pain and higher prevalence and severity of cutaneous allodynia (CA).

Major finding: Women vs. men showed higher prevalence of self-reported neck pain (73.33% vs. 43.33%; P = .04), CA (P = .001), and 4 times higher risk of having severe CA (P = .007).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 30 men and 30 women with migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo to NDS Xavier. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Xavier NDS et al. Pain Med. 2021 Mar 19. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab106.

Key clinical point: Women vs. men with migraine had a higher frequency of self-reported neck pain and higher prevalence and severity of cutaneous allodynia (CA).

Major finding: Women vs. men showed higher prevalence of self-reported neck pain (73.33% vs. 43.33%; P = .04), CA (P = .001), and 4 times higher risk of having severe CA (P = .007).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 30 men and 30 women with migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo to NDS Xavier. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Xavier NDS et al. Pain Med. 2021 Mar 19. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab106.

Key clinical point: Women vs. men with migraine had a higher frequency of self-reported neck pain and higher prevalence and severity of cutaneous allodynia (CA).

Major finding: Women vs. men showed higher prevalence of self-reported neck pain (73.33% vs. 43.33%; P = .04), CA (P = .001), and 4 times higher risk of having severe CA (P = .007).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 30 men and 30 women with migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo to NDS Xavier. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Xavier NDS et al. Pain Med. 2021 Mar 19. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab106.

Key clinical point: People with migraine may experience a wide range of comorbidities and co-occurring conditions, which should be managed effectively.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without migraine were 3 times more likely to experience insomnia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.79; 95% confidence interval, [95% CI], 3.6-4.0), depression (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), anxiety (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), and gastric ulcer/gastrointestinal bleeding (aOR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.8-3.5).

Study details: Data come from the prospective, web-based Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment survey involving adults with (n=15,133) and without migraine (n=77,453).

Disclosures: The study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, USA. The lead author along with others declared receiving grant support and/or honoraria from various sources. S Munjal and P Singh declared being employees while RB Lipton, DC Buse, ML Reed, TJ Schwedt, and DW Dodick reported being consultants at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

Source: Buse DC et al. J Headache Pain. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-1084-y.

Key clinical point: People with migraine may experience a wide range of comorbidities and co-occurring conditions, which should be managed effectively.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without migraine were 3 times more likely to experience insomnia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.79; 95% confidence interval, [95% CI], 3.6-4.0), depression (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), anxiety (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), and gastric ulcer/gastrointestinal bleeding (aOR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.8-3.5).

Study details: Data come from the prospective, web-based Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment survey involving adults with (n=15,133) and without migraine (n=77,453).

Disclosures: The study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, USA. The lead author along with others declared receiving grant support and/or honoraria from various sources. S Munjal and P Singh declared being employees while RB Lipton, DC Buse, ML Reed, TJ Schwedt, and DW Dodick reported being consultants at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

Source: Buse DC et al. J Headache Pain. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-1084-y.

Key clinical point: People with migraine may experience a wide range of comorbidities and co-occurring conditions, which should be managed effectively.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without migraine were 3 times more likely to experience insomnia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.79; 95% confidence interval, [95% CI], 3.6-4.0), depression (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), anxiety (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 3.0-3.3), and gastric ulcer/gastrointestinal bleeding (aOR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.8-3.5).

Study details: Data come from the prospective, web-based Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment survey involving adults with (n=15,133) and without migraine (n=77,453).

Disclosures: The study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, USA. The lead author along with others declared receiving grant support and/or honoraria from various sources. S Munjal and P Singh declared being employees while RB Lipton, DC Buse, ML Reed, TJ Schwedt, and DW Dodick reported being consultants at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

Source: Buse DC et al. J Headache Pain. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-1084-y.