Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

The combination of ribociclib (Kisqali) and endocrine therapy has already been shown to yield a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer. Now the same combination has also shown benefit in early-stage HR+/HER2– breast tumors.

The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.

This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.

Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
 

‘Early but impressive’

“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.

“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”

In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.

She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.

“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”

In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
 

Study details

The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.

To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.

Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.

The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.

Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.

A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.

At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.

As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).

The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
 

Safety

The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes

The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.

Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.

In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.

“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.

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

The combination of ribociclib (Kisqali) and endocrine therapy has already been shown to yield a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer. Now the same combination has also shown benefit in early-stage HR+/HER2– breast tumors.

The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.

This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.

Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
 

‘Early but impressive’

“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.

“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”

In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.

She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.

“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”

In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
 

Study details

The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.

To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.

Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.

The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.

Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.

A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.

At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.

As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).

The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
 

Safety

The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes

The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.

Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.

In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.

“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.

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

The combination of ribociclib (Kisqali) and endocrine therapy has already been shown to yield a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer. Now the same combination has also shown benefit in early-stage HR+/HER2– breast tumors.

The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.

This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.

Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
 

‘Early but impressive’

“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.

“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”

In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.

She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.

“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”

In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
 

Study details

The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.

To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.

Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.

The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.

Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.

A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.

At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.

As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).

The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
 

Safety

The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes

The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.

Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.

In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.

“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

CHICAGO – Many patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who do not have high-risk disease can skip radiotherapy to the pelvic area, and instead be treated with chemotherapy alone and then surgery, say researchers reporting results from the PROSPECT trial.

“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”

Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”

“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”

Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”

The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

Chemoradiation is standard approach

Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.

She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.

“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”

However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.

This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”

Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”

The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”

The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.

They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.

All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.

The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.

The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.

Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.

Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.

FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.

She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.

“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.

She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
 

Trial results

After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).

The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.

Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).

In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).

At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Many patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who do not have high-risk disease can skip radiotherapy to the pelvic area, and instead be treated with chemotherapy alone and then surgery, say researchers reporting results from the PROSPECT trial.

“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”

Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”

“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”

Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”

The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

Chemoradiation is standard approach

Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.

She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.

“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”

However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.

This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”

Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”

The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”

The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.

They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.

All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.

The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.

The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.

Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.

Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.

FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.

She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.

“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.

She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
 

Trial results

After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).

The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.

Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).

In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).

At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Many patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who do not have high-risk disease can skip radiotherapy to the pelvic area, and instead be treated with chemotherapy alone and then surgery, say researchers reporting results from the PROSPECT trial.

“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”

Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”

“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”

Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”

The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

Chemoradiation is standard approach

Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.

She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.

“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”

However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.

This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”

Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”

The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”

The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.

They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.

All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.

The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.

The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.

Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.

Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.

FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.

She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.

“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.

She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
 

Trial results

After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).

The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.

Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).

In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).

At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).

“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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