Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Key clinical point: Both total hip bone mineral density (BMD) change and T-score can serve as surrogates for predicting vertebral fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis receiving denosumab treatment.

Major finding: Total hip BMD change and T-score were strong predictors of subsequent vertebral fracture risk, with total hip BMD change accounting for 73% and T-score accounting for 23% of the treatment effect.

Study details: Post hoc analysis of the DIRECT trial involving 1,011 Japanese postmenopausal women and men who were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive denosumab, placebo, or alendronate.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. N Okubo, T Osakabe, K Watanabe, and H Takami were Daiichi Sankyo employees. Other authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including Daiichi Sankyo.

Source: Okubo N et al. Calcif Tissue Int. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1007/s00223-020-00750-y.

Key clinical point: Both total hip bone mineral density (BMD) change and T-score can serve as surrogates for predicting vertebral fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis receiving denosumab treatment.

Major finding: Total hip BMD change and T-score were strong predictors of subsequent vertebral fracture risk, with total hip BMD change accounting for 73% and T-score accounting for 23% of the treatment effect.

Study details: Post hoc analysis of the DIRECT trial involving 1,011 Japanese postmenopausal women and men who were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive denosumab, placebo, or alendronate.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. N Okubo, T Osakabe, K Watanabe, and H Takami were Daiichi Sankyo employees. Other authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including Daiichi Sankyo.

Source: Okubo N et al. Calcif Tissue Int. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1007/s00223-020-00750-y.

Key clinical point: Both total hip bone mineral density (BMD) change and T-score can serve as surrogates for predicting vertebral fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis receiving denosumab treatment.

Major finding: Total hip BMD change and T-score were strong predictors of subsequent vertebral fracture risk, with total hip BMD change accounting for 73% and T-score accounting for 23% of the treatment effect.

Study details: Post hoc analysis of the DIRECT trial involving 1,011 Japanese postmenopausal women and men who were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive denosumab, placebo, or alendronate.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. N Okubo, T Osakabe, K Watanabe, and H Takami were Daiichi Sankyo employees. Other authors reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including Daiichi Sankyo.

Source: Okubo N et al. Calcif Tissue Int. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1007/s00223-020-00750-y.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Key clinical point: Diabetic patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS) under metformin therapy presented a lower osteoporosis rate vs. those who were not receiving metformin.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis was lower in diabetic patients with CIS who were receiving metformin therapy vs. those who were not receiving metformin (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .022).

Study details: This retrospective matched-cohort study included 7,827 diabetic patients with CIS treated with metformin and 23,481 matched controls with no metformin therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Tri-Service General Hospital Research Foundation, the National Defense Medical Center, Ministry of National Defense-Medical Affairs Bureau, and the Teh-Tzer Study Group for Human Medical Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lu CH et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092839.

Key clinical point: Diabetic patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS) under metformin therapy presented a lower osteoporosis rate vs. those who were not receiving metformin.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis was lower in diabetic patients with CIS who were receiving metformin therapy vs. those who were not receiving metformin (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .022).

Study details: This retrospective matched-cohort study included 7,827 diabetic patients with CIS treated with metformin and 23,481 matched controls with no metformin therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Tri-Service General Hospital Research Foundation, the National Defense Medical Center, Ministry of National Defense-Medical Affairs Bureau, and the Teh-Tzer Study Group for Human Medical Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lu CH et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092839.

Key clinical point: Diabetic patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS) under metformin therapy presented a lower osteoporosis rate vs. those who were not receiving metformin.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis was lower in diabetic patients with CIS who were receiving metformin therapy vs. those who were not receiving metformin (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .022).

Study details: This retrospective matched-cohort study included 7,827 diabetic patients with CIS treated with metformin and 23,481 matched controls with no metformin therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Tri-Service General Hospital Research Foundation, the National Defense Medical Center, Ministry of National Defense-Medical Affairs Bureau, and the Teh-Tzer Study Group for Human Medical Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lu CH et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092839.

Key clinical point: Teriparatide improves bone formation rate (BFR), bone turnover markers, and spine and hip bone density in premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (IOP).

Major finding: At 6 months, teriparatide significantly increased lumbar spine (LS) areal bone mineral density (aBMD) vs placebo (percentage change: 5.51% vs. 1.55%; P = .007). At 24 months, teriparatide significantly increased aBMD of LS, total hip, and femoral neck (percentage change: 13.2%, 5.2%, and 5.0%, respectively; P ≤. 001 for all). Cancellous and intracortical BFR increased 3.3-fold (P ≤. 001) and 1.9-fold (P ≤. 001), respectively, in the teriparatide group with no change in placebo group. Serum N-terminal propeptides of procollagen type 1, osteocalcin, and C-telopeptide increased significantly by 3 months with teriparatide treatment.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 trial of 41 premenopausal women with IOP who were randomly assigned to either teriparatide 20 mcg (n = 28) or placebo (n = 13). After 6 months, placebo group was switched to teriparatide for 24 months, and the teriparatide group continued the drug for 18 months.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States Food and Drug Administration Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. A Cohen, E Shane, RR Recker, and JM Lappe received research support from Amgen and Eli Lilly. DW Dempster received research support and consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Radius Health.

Source: Cohen A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa489.

Key clinical point: Teriparatide improves bone formation rate (BFR), bone turnover markers, and spine and hip bone density in premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (IOP).

Major finding: At 6 months, teriparatide significantly increased lumbar spine (LS) areal bone mineral density (aBMD) vs placebo (percentage change: 5.51% vs. 1.55%; P = .007). At 24 months, teriparatide significantly increased aBMD of LS, total hip, and femoral neck (percentage change: 13.2%, 5.2%, and 5.0%, respectively; P ≤. 001 for all). Cancellous and intracortical BFR increased 3.3-fold (P ≤. 001) and 1.9-fold (P ≤. 001), respectively, in the teriparatide group with no change in placebo group. Serum N-terminal propeptides of procollagen type 1, osteocalcin, and C-telopeptide increased significantly by 3 months with teriparatide treatment.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 trial of 41 premenopausal women with IOP who were randomly assigned to either teriparatide 20 mcg (n = 28) or placebo (n = 13). After 6 months, placebo group was switched to teriparatide for 24 months, and the teriparatide group continued the drug for 18 months.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States Food and Drug Administration Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. A Cohen, E Shane, RR Recker, and JM Lappe received research support from Amgen and Eli Lilly. DW Dempster received research support and consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Radius Health.

Source: Cohen A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa489.

Key clinical point: Teriparatide improves bone formation rate (BFR), bone turnover markers, and spine and hip bone density in premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (IOP).

Major finding: At 6 months, teriparatide significantly increased lumbar spine (LS) areal bone mineral density (aBMD) vs placebo (percentage change: 5.51% vs. 1.55%; P = .007). At 24 months, teriparatide significantly increased aBMD of LS, total hip, and femoral neck (percentage change: 13.2%, 5.2%, and 5.0%, respectively; P ≤. 001 for all). Cancellous and intracortical BFR increased 3.3-fold (P ≤. 001) and 1.9-fold (P ≤. 001), respectively, in the teriparatide group with no change in placebo group. Serum N-terminal propeptides of procollagen type 1, osteocalcin, and C-telopeptide increased significantly by 3 months with teriparatide treatment.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 trial of 41 premenopausal women with IOP who were randomly assigned to either teriparatide 20 mcg (n = 28) or placebo (n = 13). After 6 months, placebo group was switched to teriparatide for 24 months, and the teriparatide group continued the drug for 18 months.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the United States Food and Drug Administration Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. A Cohen, E Shane, RR Recker, and JM Lappe received research support from Amgen and Eli Lilly. DW Dempster received research support and consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Radius Health.

Source: Cohen A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa489.

Key clinical point: Denosumab treatment was safe and increased bone mineral density (BMD), suppressed bone turnover, and improved bone quality marker levels in chronic liver disease (CLD) patients with osteoporosis.

Major finding: At 12 months, denosumab significantly improved BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip regardless of age, gender, and presence/absence of liver cirrhosis (+4.44%, +3.71%, and +4.03%, respectively; P less than .001 for all). Denosumab significantly decreased serum levels of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P less than .001 for both) and also plasma pentosidine level (P = .010). No patients experienced fractures and moderate-to-severe adverse events, except for transient hypocalcemia.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 60 CLD patients with osteoporosis who were subcutaneously administered denosumab once every 6 months.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Saeki C et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep 7. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i33.4960.

Key clinical point: Denosumab treatment was safe and increased bone mineral density (BMD), suppressed bone turnover, and improved bone quality marker levels in chronic liver disease (CLD) patients with osteoporosis.

Major finding: At 12 months, denosumab significantly improved BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip regardless of age, gender, and presence/absence of liver cirrhosis (+4.44%, +3.71%, and +4.03%, respectively; P less than .001 for all). Denosumab significantly decreased serum levels of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P less than .001 for both) and also plasma pentosidine level (P = .010). No patients experienced fractures and moderate-to-severe adverse events, except for transient hypocalcemia.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 60 CLD patients with osteoporosis who were subcutaneously administered denosumab once every 6 months.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Saeki C et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep 7. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i33.4960.

Key clinical point: Denosumab treatment was safe and increased bone mineral density (BMD), suppressed bone turnover, and improved bone quality marker levels in chronic liver disease (CLD) patients with osteoporosis.

Major finding: At 12 months, denosumab significantly improved BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip regardless of age, gender, and presence/absence of liver cirrhosis (+4.44%, +3.71%, and +4.03%, respectively; P less than .001 for all). Denosumab significantly decreased serum levels of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P less than .001 for both) and also plasma pentosidine level (P = .010). No patients experienced fractures and moderate-to-severe adverse events, except for transient hypocalcemia.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 60 CLD patients with osteoporosis who were subcutaneously administered denosumab once every 6 months.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Saeki C et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep 7. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i33.4960.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]