User login
TBI beats chemoconditioning for ALL transplants in children
The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?
The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.
But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.
The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.
The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.
The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).
The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).
The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.
The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.
Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.
“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.
However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.
“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.
With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.
Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.
The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?
The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.
But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.
The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.
The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.
The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).
The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).
The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.
The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.
Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.
“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.
However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.
“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.
With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.
Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.
The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The investigators sought to answer a question many physicians have raised: With improvements in human leukocyte antigen typing, better graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and other advances, can myeloablative chemotherapy conditioning replace TBI, which is more toxic?
The downstream effects of TBI can include secondary malignancies and cataracts, as well as impaired growth and impaired gonadal and cognitive function.
But the answer to that question is no, or at least, not yet.
The phase 3 trial included individuals with ALL who were aged 4-21 years at time of transplant. They were randomly assigned to receive either fractionated TBI at 12 Gy plus etoposide or chemotherapy based on a myeloablative regimen: fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan.
The trial was stopped after 413 patients had undergone randomization – quite a bit short of the 1,000-patient goal. The trial was terminated because TBI proved clearly superior on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 2.1 years.
The results showed that 72% of the TBI group – but only 51% of the chemotherapy arm – were relapse free at 2 years with no graft-versus-host disease (P = .0003).
The 2-year treatment-related mortality rate was 2% in the TBI group but 9% with chemotherapy conditioning (P = .03).
The study was published Feb. 1, 2020, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“We recommend TBI plus etoposide conditioning for patients [aged over] 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplant],” they concluded. The investigators were led by Christina Peters, MD, a pediatrics professor at the St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna.
The benefits of TBI held on multivariate analysis and across subgroups, including children in their first and second remissions and among those with high-risk cytogenetics. Relapse risk factors, such as age at transplant, leukemic phenotype, and molecular aberrations, did not significantly affect outcomes, the authors reported.
Given that relapses plateaued with TBI at 2.5 years but were still on the upswing for patients who underwent chemoconditioning, “it is unlikely that secondary malignancies after TBI could jeopardize the survival advantage,” they wrote.
“So does this mean that the HCT community is forever chained to TBI as a standard of care? Certainly, it means that without very sound rationale to deviate, a TBI-based preparative regimen is the preferred therapy at present,” Michael Pulsipher, MD, head of blood and marrow transplantation at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, commented in an accompanying editorial.
However, “there are approaches under study currently that may define patients who do not need TBI for high rates of cure,” he suggested. Those approaches include selecting patients with the deepest remissions and using KIR-favorable haplotype to harness natural killer cell activity.
“In our new world of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and immunotherapies, surely we can find safer paths to success,” Dr. Pulsipher wrote.
With regard to patient selection, the investigators noted that a recent review that included more than 3,000 children with ALL found no overall survival benefit with TBI versus chemoconditioning for patients in first complete remission but worse outcomes with chemoconditioning among patients in second complete remission. “A similar trend was observed in our subgroup analyses; however, our study was not powered to assess statistical significance in a sample size of 413 patients,” they wrote.
Minimal residual disease did not influence survival outcomes, probably because the investigators were aggressive in inducing deep remission in their patients before transplant, so for most patients, MRD was undetectable or very low beforehand.
The study was funded by Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Neovii, Medac, and others. Dr. Peters and coauthors, as well as Dr. Pulsipher have disclosed numerous ties with those and/or other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EHR data harnessed to spot new risk factors for early-onset CRC
The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.
These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).
“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.
To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.
The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.
The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.
Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
Results: Top models and features
The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.
However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.
Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.
For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.
Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.
None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.
The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.
“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.
Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.
The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.
These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).
“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.
To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.
The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.
The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.
Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
Results: Top models and features
The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.
However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.
Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.
For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.
Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.
None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.
The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.
“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.
Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.
The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.
These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).
“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.
To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.
The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.
The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.
Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
Results: Top models and features
The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.
However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.
Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.
For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.
Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.
None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.
The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.
“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.
Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.
FROM AACR: AI, DIAGNOSIS, AND IMAGING 2021
The Match and COVID-19: Stolen interviews, swag bags, and stress
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nature or nurture in primary care?
Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.
After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.
Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.
Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.
At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.
However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.
If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.
It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.
After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.
Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.
Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.
At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.
However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.
If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.
It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.
After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.
Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.
Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.
At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.
However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.
If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.
It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Death rates ‘remain high’ in patients with thoracic cancers and COVID-19
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
FROM WCLC 2020
Nivolumab improves survival in relapsed mesothelioma
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Screening for lung cancer in never-smokers is ‘feasible’
“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.
The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.
At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”
The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.
Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.
These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.
The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.
The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.
Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
More research needed
The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.
However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”
There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.
On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”
Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.
She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.
Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.
“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
Details of TALENT findings
The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.
Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.
They also had to have one of the following risk factors:
- Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
- Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
- Chronic lung disease, namely, or .
- A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
- Cooking without ventilation.
The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.
Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.
Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.
Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.
Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.
Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.
Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.
Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.
Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.
The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).
The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.
The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).
The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).
The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.
The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.
No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.
The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.
At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”
The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.
Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.
These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.
The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.
The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.
Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
More research needed
The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.
However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”
There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.
On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”
Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.
She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.
Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.
“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
Details of TALENT findings
The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.
Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.
They also had to have one of the following risk factors:
- Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
- Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
- Chronic lung disease, namely, or .
- A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
- Cooking without ventilation.
The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.
Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.
Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.
Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.
Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.
Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.
Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.
Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.
Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.
The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).
The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.
The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).
The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).
The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.
The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.
No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.
The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.
At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”
The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.
Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.
These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.
The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.
The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.
Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
More research needed
The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.
However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”
There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.
On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”
Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.
She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.
Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.
“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
Details of TALENT findings
The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.
Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.
They also had to have one of the following risk factors:
- Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
- Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
- Chronic lung disease, namely, or .
- A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
- Cooking without ventilation.
The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.
Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.
Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.
Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.
Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.
Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.
Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.
Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.
Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.
The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).
The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.
The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).
The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).
The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.
The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.
No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA grants MET inhibitor tepotinib accelerated approval for NSCLC
Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.
The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.
Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.
Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.
Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.
EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”
“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.
“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.
Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.
“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.
Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”
Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.
For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.
Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.
The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.
Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.
Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.
Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.
EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”
“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.
“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.
Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.
“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.
Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”
Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.
For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.
Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.
The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.
Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.
Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.
Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.
EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”
“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.
“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.
Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.
“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.
Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”
Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.
For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.
‘Astonishing’ 4-year survival in NSCLC with pembro plus chemo
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Scaly lesion on forearm
The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.
Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.1
The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.
After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.
Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Criscione VD, Weinstock MA, Naylor MF, et al. Actinic keratoses: natural history and risk of malignant transformation in the veterans affairs topical tretinoin chemoprevention trial. Cancer. 2009;115:2523-2530. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24284.
The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.
Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.1
The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.
After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.
Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.
Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.1
The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.
After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.
Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Criscione VD, Weinstock MA, Naylor MF, et al. Actinic keratoses: natural history and risk of malignant transformation in the veterans affairs topical tretinoin chemoprevention trial. Cancer. 2009;115:2523-2530. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24284.
1. Criscione VD, Weinstock MA, Naylor MF, et al. Actinic keratoses: natural history and risk of malignant transformation in the veterans affairs topical tretinoin chemoprevention trial. Cancer. 2009;115:2523-2530. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24284.
