Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.

The observational analysis of over 20,000 US adults showed that those who limited their eating to a period of less than 8 hours per day had a higher risk for cardiovascular mortality compared with peers who ate across the typical 12-16 hours per day. This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.

Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.

“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization. 

The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
 

‘Provocative’ Results 

Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown. 

The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed. 

The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.

During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths. 

In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).

This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41). 

Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67). 

No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
 

Quality More Important Than Timing 

Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death. 

“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said. 

“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.

Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables. 

Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.

He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it. 

Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.

The observational analysis of over 20,000 US adults showed that those who limited their eating to a period of less than 8 hours per day had a higher risk for cardiovascular mortality compared with peers who ate across the typical 12-16 hours per day. This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.

Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.

“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization. 

The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
 

‘Provocative’ Results 

Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown. 

The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed. 

The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.

During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths. 

In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).

This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41). 

Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67). 

No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
 

Quality More Important Than Timing 

Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death. 

“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said. 

“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.

Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables. 

Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.

He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it. 

Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.

The observational analysis of over 20,000 US adults showed that those who limited their eating to a period of less than 8 hours per day had a higher risk for cardiovascular mortality compared with peers who ate across the typical 12-16 hours per day. This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.

Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.

“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization. 

The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
 

‘Provocative’ Results 

Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown. 

The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed. 

The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.

During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths. 

In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).

This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41). 

Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67). 

No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
 

Quality More Important Than Timing 

Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death. 

“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said. 

“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.

Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables. 

Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.

He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it. 

Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?

Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.  

Dr. Brandon: For most people, sexual intimacy is critical for their experience of life. It correlates with their relationship satisfaction and life satisfaction. It’s much bigger than what’s happening in the bedroom. People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.

But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.

Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.

Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.

Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.

Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.

Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.

So how do people find a sex therapist?

Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.

Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.

Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.

Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?

Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.  

Dr. Brandon: For most people, sexual intimacy is critical for their experience of life. It correlates with their relationship satisfaction and life satisfaction. It’s much bigger than what’s happening in the bedroom. People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.

But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.

Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.

Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.

Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.

Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.

Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.

So how do people find a sex therapist?

Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.

Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.

Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.

Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?

Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.  

Dr. Brandon: For most people, sexual intimacy is critical for their experience of life. It correlates with their relationship satisfaction and life satisfaction. It’s much bigger than what’s happening in the bedroom. People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.

But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.

Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.

Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.

Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.

Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.

Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.

So how do people find a sex therapist?

Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.

Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.

Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.

Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted ponatinib (Iclusig, Takeda) accelerated approval for use with chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL).

The approval makes the third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) the first targeted treatment approved for upfront use in adults with Ph+ ALL, Takeda said in a press release.

Ponatinib was previously approved as monotherapy for Ph+ ALL when no other kinase inhibitors are indicated or for T315I-positive Ph+ ALL, as well as for chronic myeloid leukemia.

Approval for the new indication was based on the PhALLCON trial. In the trial, 245 patients were randomized 2:1 to either ponatinib 30 mg once daily or the first-generation TKI imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis) 600 mg once daily on a chemotherapy background consisting of three cycles of vincristine/dexamethasone induction, six cycles methotrexate/cytarabine consolidation, and 11 cycles of vincristine/prednisone maintenance.

At the end of induction, 12% of patients in the imatinib arm vs 30% in the ponatinib group were in complete remission with no minimal residual disease. Event-free survival data are not yet mature.

At the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, an investigator on the trial said that ponatinib plus low-intensity chemotherapy has the potential to become the new standard of care for upfront Ph+ All. However, continued approval for the new indication may depend on trials confirming clinical benefit, Takeda said.

Ponatinib carries a boxed warning of arterial occlusive events, venous thromboembolic events, heart failure, and hepatotoxicity.

The most common adverse reactions reported in the PhALLCON trial were hepatic dysfunction, arthralgia, rash, headache, pyrexia, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, hypertension, pancreatitis/elevated lipase, peripheral neuropathy, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, fluid retention and edema, vomiting, paresthesia, and cardiac arrhythmias.

The recommended ponatinib dose is 30 mg orally once daily until the end of induction, dropping down to 15 mg once daily in patients who go into remission with no minimal residual disease after induction, for up to 20 cycles or until loss of response or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirty tablets of 30 mg or 15 mg cost $21,944.54, according to Drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted ponatinib (Iclusig, Takeda) accelerated approval for use with chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL).

The approval makes the third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) the first targeted treatment approved for upfront use in adults with Ph+ ALL, Takeda said in a press release.

Ponatinib was previously approved as monotherapy for Ph+ ALL when no other kinase inhibitors are indicated or for T315I-positive Ph+ ALL, as well as for chronic myeloid leukemia.

Approval for the new indication was based on the PhALLCON trial. In the trial, 245 patients were randomized 2:1 to either ponatinib 30 mg once daily or the first-generation TKI imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis) 600 mg once daily on a chemotherapy background consisting of three cycles of vincristine/dexamethasone induction, six cycles methotrexate/cytarabine consolidation, and 11 cycles of vincristine/prednisone maintenance.

At the end of induction, 12% of patients in the imatinib arm vs 30% in the ponatinib group were in complete remission with no minimal residual disease. Event-free survival data are not yet mature.

At the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, an investigator on the trial said that ponatinib plus low-intensity chemotherapy has the potential to become the new standard of care for upfront Ph+ All. However, continued approval for the new indication may depend on trials confirming clinical benefit, Takeda said.

Ponatinib carries a boxed warning of arterial occlusive events, venous thromboembolic events, heart failure, and hepatotoxicity.

The most common adverse reactions reported in the PhALLCON trial were hepatic dysfunction, arthralgia, rash, headache, pyrexia, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, hypertension, pancreatitis/elevated lipase, peripheral neuropathy, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, fluid retention and edema, vomiting, paresthesia, and cardiac arrhythmias.

The recommended ponatinib dose is 30 mg orally once daily until the end of induction, dropping down to 15 mg once daily in patients who go into remission with no minimal residual disease after induction, for up to 20 cycles or until loss of response or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirty tablets of 30 mg or 15 mg cost $21,944.54, according to Drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted ponatinib (Iclusig, Takeda) accelerated approval for use with chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL).

The approval makes the third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) the first targeted treatment approved for upfront use in adults with Ph+ ALL, Takeda said in a press release.

Ponatinib was previously approved as monotherapy for Ph+ ALL when no other kinase inhibitors are indicated or for T315I-positive Ph+ ALL, as well as for chronic myeloid leukemia.

Approval for the new indication was based on the PhALLCON trial. In the trial, 245 patients were randomized 2:1 to either ponatinib 30 mg once daily or the first-generation TKI imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis) 600 mg once daily on a chemotherapy background consisting of three cycles of vincristine/dexamethasone induction, six cycles methotrexate/cytarabine consolidation, and 11 cycles of vincristine/prednisone maintenance.

At the end of induction, 12% of patients in the imatinib arm vs 30% in the ponatinib group were in complete remission with no minimal residual disease. Event-free survival data are not yet mature.

At the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, an investigator on the trial said that ponatinib plus low-intensity chemotherapy has the potential to become the new standard of care for upfront Ph+ All. However, continued approval for the new indication may depend on trials confirming clinical benefit, Takeda said.

Ponatinib carries a boxed warning of arterial occlusive events, venous thromboembolic events, heart failure, and hepatotoxicity.

The most common adverse reactions reported in the PhALLCON trial were hepatic dysfunction, arthralgia, rash, headache, pyrexia, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, hypertension, pancreatitis/elevated lipase, peripheral neuropathy, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, fluid retention and edema, vomiting, paresthesia, and cardiac arrhythmias.

The recommended ponatinib dose is 30 mg orally once daily until the end of induction, dropping down to 15 mg once daily in patients who go into remission with no minimal residual disease after induction, for up to 20 cycles or until loss of response or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirty tablets of 30 mg or 15 mg cost $21,944.54, according to Drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Transmasculine patients with acne require unique care that not only is sensitive but also reflects an understanding about factors that can affect their skin such as hormone therapy, a dermatologist told colleagues in a session at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

In these patients, treatment of acne is crucial, said Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta. “These are patients who are suffering and reporting that they’re having mental health impacts” related to acne.

In transmasculine patients — those who were biologically female at birth but identify as masculine — testosterone therapy greatly boosts the risk for acne, even in adults who are long past adolescence, Dr. Yeung said. Data suggest that acne appears within the first 6 months after testosterone therapy begins, he said, “and the maximal and complete effect occurs within 1-2 years.”

A 2021 study tracked 988 transgender patients receiving testosterone at Fenway Health in Boston and found that 31% had a diagnosis of acne, up from 6.3% prior to taking hormones. And 2 years following the start of therapy, 25.1% had acne, with cases especially common among those aged 18-20.75 years (29.6%). Even among those aged 28.25-66.5 years, 17.1% had acne.

Transmasculine patients may develop acne in areas across the body “in places that you normally won’t see by just looking at the patient,” Dr. Yeung said. Excoriation in addition to comedones, papules, pustules, and nodules can be common, he added.

Dr. Yeung highlighted a 2019 study of transgender men that linked higher levels of acne to higher levels of serum testosterone, higher body mass index, and current smoking. And in a 2014 study, 6% of 50 transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne after an average of 10 years on testosterone therapy.

A 2020 study of 696 transgender adults surveyed in California and Georgia found that 14% of transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne — two thirds attributed it to hormone therapy — vs 1% of transfeminine patients, said Dr. Yeung, the lead author of the study. However, transmasculine patients were less likely to have seen a dermatologist.

Dr. Yeung also highlighted a 2021 study he coauthored that linked current moderate to severe acne in transmasculine patients taking testosterone to higher levels of depression and anxiety vs counterparts who had never had those forms of acne.

Another factor affecting acne in transmasculine patients is the use of chest binders to reduce breast size. “Wearing a chest binder is really helpful for a lot of our patients and is associated with improved self-esteem, mood, mental health, and safety in public,” Dr. Yeung said. However, the binders can contribute to skin problems.

Dr. Yeung said he and his colleagues emphasize the importance of breathable material in binders and suggest to patients that they not wear them when they’re in “safe spaces.”

Isotretinoin, Contraception Considerations

As for treatment of acne in transgender patients, Dr. Yeung cautioned colleagues to not automatically reject isotretinoin as an option for transgender patients who have a history of depression. Dermatologists may be tempted to avoid the drug in these patients because of its link to suicide, he said. (This apparent association has long been debated.) But, Dr. Yeung said, it’s important to consider that many of these patients suffered from anxiety and depression because of the lack of access to proper gender-reassignment treatment.

When using isotretinoin, he emphasized, it’s crucial to consider whether transmasculine patients could become pregnant while on this therapy. Consider whether the patient has the organs needed to become pregnant and ask questions about the potential that they could be impregnated.

“Remember that sexual behavior is different from gender identity,” Dr. Yeung said. A transmasculine person with a uterus and vagina, for example, may still have vaginal intercourse with males and potentially become pregnant. “So, we need to assess what kind of sexual behavior our patients are taking part in.”

Contraceptives such as intrauterine devices, implants, and injectable options may be helpful for transmasculine patients because they can reduce menstrual symptoms like spotting that can be distressing to them, he said. By helping a patient take a contraceptive, “you may actually be helping with their gender dysphoria and helping them get on isotretinoin.”

Dr. Yeung disclosed fees from JAMA and American Academy of Dermatology; grants/research funding from the American Acne & Rosacea Society, Dermatology Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Eczema Association, and National Institutes of Health; and speaker/faculty education honoraria from Dermatology Digest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Transmasculine patients with acne require unique care that not only is sensitive but also reflects an understanding about factors that can affect their skin such as hormone therapy, a dermatologist told colleagues in a session at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

In these patients, treatment of acne is crucial, said Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta. “These are patients who are suffering and reporting that they’re having mental health impacts” related to acne.

In transmasculine patients — those who were biologically female at birth but identify as masculine — testosterone therapy greatly boosts the risk for acne, even in adults who are long past adolescence, Dr. Yeung said. Data suggest that acne appears within the first 6 months after testosterone therapy begins, he said, “and the maximal and complete effect occurs within 1-2 years.”

A 2021 study tracked 988 transgender patients receiving testosterone at Fenway Health in Boston and found that 31% had a diagnosis of acne, up from 6.3% prior to taking hormones. And 2 years following the start of therapy, 25.1% had acne, with cases especially common among those aged 18-20.75 years (29.6%). Even among those aged 28.25-66.5 years, 17.1% had acne.

Transmasculine patients may develop acne in areas across the body “in places that you normally won’t see by just looking at the patient,” Dr. Yeung said. Excoriation in addition to comedones, papules, pustules, and nodules can be common, he added.

Dr. Yeung highlighted a 2019 study of transgender men that linked higher levels of acne to higher levels of serum testosterone, higher body mass index, and current smoking. And in a 2014 study, 6% of 50 transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne after an average of 10 years on testosterone therapy.

A 2020 study of 696 transgender adults surveyed in California and Georgia found that 14% of transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne — two thirds attributed it to hormone therapy — vs 1% of transfeminine patients, said Dr. Yeung, the lead author of the study. However, transmasculine patients were less likely to have seen a dermatologist.

Dr. Yeung also highlighted a 2021 study he coauthored that linked current moderate to severe acne in transmasculine patients taking testosterone to higher levels of depression and anxiety vs counterparts who had never had those forms of acne.

Another factor affecting acne in transmasculine patients is the use of chest binders to reduce breast size. “Wearing a chest binder is really helpful for a lot of our patients and is associated with improved self-esteem, mood, mental health, and safety in public,” Dr. Yeung said. However, the binders can contribute to skin problems.

Dr. Yeung said he and his colleagues emphasize the importance of breathable material in binders and suggest to patients that they not wear them when they’re in “safe spaces.”

Isotretinoin, Contraception Considerations

As for treatment of acne in transgender patients, Dr. Yeung cautioned colleagues to not automatically reject isotretinoin as an option for transgender patients who have a history of depression. Dermatologists may be tempted to avoid the drug in these patients because of its link to suicide, he said. (This apparent association has long been debated.) But, Dr. Yeung said, it’s important to consider that many of these patients suffered from anxiety and depression because of the lack of access to proper gender-reassignment treatment.

When using isotretinoin, he emphasized, it’s crucial to consider whether transmasculine patients could become pregnant while on this therapy. Consider whether the patient has the organs needed to become pregnant and ask questions about the potential that they could be impregnated.

“Remember that sexual behavior is different from gender identity,” Dr. Yeung said. A transmasculine person with a uterus and vagina, for example, may still have vaginal intercourse with males and potentially become pregnant. “So, we need to assess what kind of sexual behavior our patients are taking part in.”

Contraceptives such as intrauterine devices, implants, and injectable options may be helpful for transmasculine patients because they can reduce menstrual symptoms like spotting that can be distressing to them, he said. By helping a patient take a contraceptive, “you may actually be helping with their gender dysphoria and helping them get on isotretinoin.”

Dr. Yeung disclosed fees from JAMA and American Academy of Dermatology; grants/research funding from the American Acne & Rosacea Society, Dermatology Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Eczema Association, and National Institutes of Health; and speaker/faculty education honoraria from Dermatology Digest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Transmasculine patients with acne require unique care that not only is sensitive but also reflects an understanding about factors that can affect their skin such as hormone therapy, a dermatologist told colleagues in a session at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

In these patients, treatment of acne is crucial, said Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta. “These are patients who are suffering and reporting that they’re having mental health impacts” related to acne.

In transmasculine patients — those who were biologically female at birth but identify as masculine — testosterone therapy greatly boosts the risk for acne, even in adults who are long past adolescence, Dr. Yeung said. Data suggest that acne appears within the first 6 months after testosterone therapy begins, he said, “and the maximal and complete effect occurs within 1-2 years.”

A 2021 study tracked 988 transgender patients receiving testosterone at Fenway Health in Boston and found that 31% had a diagnosis of acne, up from 6.3% prior to taking hormones. And 2 years following the start of therapy, 25.1% had acne, with cases especially common among those aged 18-20.75 years (29.6%). Even among those aged 28.25-66.5 years, 17.1% had acne.

Transmasculine patients may develop acne in areas across the body “in places that you normally won’t see by just looking at the patient,” Dr. Yeung said. Excoriation in addition to comedones, papules, pustules, and nodules can be common, he added.

Dr. Yeung highlighted a 2019 study of transgender men that linked higher levels of acne to higher levels of serum testosterone, higher body mass index, and current smoking. And in a 2014 study, 6% of 50 transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne after an average of 10 years on testosterone therapy.

A 2020 study of 696 transgender adults surveyed in California and Georgia found that 14% of transmasculine patients had moderate to severe acne — two thirds attributed it to hormone therapy — vs 1% of transfeminine patients, said Dr. Yeung, the lead author of the study. However, transmasculine patients were less likely to have seen a dermatologist.

Dr. Yeung also highlighted a 2021 study he coauthored that linked current moderate to severe acne in transmasculine patients taking testosterone to higher levels of depression and anxiety vs counterparts who had never had those forms of acne.

Another factor affecting acne in transmasculine patients is the use of chest binders to reduce breast size. “Wearing a chest binder is really helpful for a lot of our patients and is associated with improved self-esteem, mood, mental health, and safety in public,” Dr. Yeung said. However, the binders can contribute to skin problems.

Dr. Yeung said he and his colleagues emphasize the importance of breathable material in binders and suggest to patients that they not wear them when they’re in “safe spaces.”

Isotretinoin, Contraception Considerations

As for treatment of acne in transgender patients, Dr. Yeung cautioned colleagues to not automatically reject isotretinoin as an option for transgender patients who have a history of depression. Dermatologists may be tempted to avoid the drug in these patients because of its link to suicide, he said. (This apparent association has long been debated.) But, Dr. Yeung said, it’s important to consider that many of these patients suffered from anxiety and depression because of the lack of access to proper gender-reassignment treatment.

When using isotretinoin, he emphasized, it’s crucial to consider whether transmasculine patients could become pregnant while on this therapy. Consider whether the patient has the organs needed to become pregnant and ask questions about the potential that they could be impregnated.

“Remember that sexual behavior is different from gender identity,” Dr. Yeung said. A transmasculine person with a uterus and vagina, for example, may still have vaginal intercourse with males and potentially become pregnant. “So, we need to assess what kind of sexual behavior our patients are taking part in.”

Contraceptives such as intrauterine devices, implants, and injectable options may be helpful for transmasculine patients because they can reduce menstrual symptoms like spotting that can be distressing to them, he said. By helping a patient take a contraceptive, “you may actually be helping with their gender dysphoria and helping them get on isotretinoin.”

Dr. Yeung disclosed fees from JAMA and American Academy of Dermatology; grants/research funding from the American Acne & Rosacea Society, Dermatology Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Eczema Association, and National Institutes of Health; and speaker/faculty education honoraria from Dermatology Digest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.