MDedge ObGyn

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

A structured exercise program leads to improvements in sexual health and sexual symptoms caused by endocrine therapy, as well as fatigue and overall quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer, a randomized controlled trial found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with metastatic breast cancer often experience issues with sexual health. Data on the effectiveness of interventions such as exercise are lacking.
• The PREFERABLE-EFFECT trial enrolled 355 women (mean age, 55.4 years) with metastatic breast cancer; 75% had received first- or second-line treatment at enrollment, and 68% had bone metastases.
• Trial participants were randomly allocated to either usual care or a 9-month (twice weekly) supervised exercise program combining aerobic, resistance, and balance exercises. All participants received general exercise advice and an activity tracker.
• Patients were assessed at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Exercise intervention effects were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis with mixed models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, most women showed no interest in sexual activity, and 60% were not sexually active. Nearly half (46%) of sexually active women reported no or little sexual enjoyment. Low sexual function was associated with depression and older age.
• Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, 27% reported vaginal pain and 40% reported vaginal dryness during sexual activity.
• The exercise intervention significantly improved sexual functioning (effect size = 0.28; P = .003) and endocrine sexual symptoms (effect size = 0.25; P = .003) at 6 months, and these effects were sustained at 9 months. Sexual enjoyment also appeared to improve in the exercise group, but due to the small sample size, this was not a statistically significant effect.
• Prior results from the trial showed that the exercise program had significant benefits for fatigue and overall quality of life (primary outcomes).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic breast cancer “often suffer from sexual health issues and this topic should be addressed by clinicians,” said study presenter Martina Schmidt, PhD, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg.

“Physical exercise should be a crucial component of the prescription we offer to our patients,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

SOURCE:

The research (abstract 269MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research needs to be done to determine the optimal role of exercise in addressing symptom burden.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Schmidt has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A structured exercise program leads to improvements in sexual health and sexual symptoms caused by endocrine therapy, as well as fatigue and overall quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer, a randomized controlled trial found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with metastatic breast cancer often experience issues with sexual health. Data on the effectiveness of interventions such as exercise are lacking.
• The PREFERABLE-EFFECT trial enrolled 355 women (mean age, 55.4 years) with metastatic breast cancer; 75% had received first- or second-line treatment at enrollment, and 68% had bone metastases.
• Trial participants were randomly allocated to either usual care or a 9-month (twice weekly) supervised exercise program combining aerobic, resistance, and balance exercises. All participants received general exercise advice and an activity tracker.
• Patients were assessed at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Exercise intervention effects were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis with mixed models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, most women showed no interest in sexual activity, and 60% were not sexually active. Nearly half (46%) of sexually active women reported no or little sexual enjoyment. Low sexual function was associated with depression and older age.
• Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, 27% reported vaginal pain and 40% reported vaginal dryness during sexual activity.
• The exercise intervention significantly improved sexual functioning (effect size = 0.28; P = .003) and endocrine sexual symptoms (effect size = 0.25; P = .003) at 6 months, and these effects were sustained at 9 months. Sexual enjoyment also appeared to improve in the exercise group, but due to the small sample size, this was not a statistically significant effect.
• Prior results from the trial showed that the exercise program had significant benefits for fatigue and overall quality of life (primary outcomes).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic breast cancer “often suffer from sexual health issues and this topic should be addressed by clinicians,” said study presenter Martina Schmidt, PhD, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg.

“Physical exercise should be a crucial component of the prescription we offer to our patients,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

SOURCE:

The research (abstract 269MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research needs to be done to determine the optimal role of exercise in addressing symptom burden.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Schmidt has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A structured exercise program leads to improvements in sexual health and sexual symptoms caused by endocrine therapy, as well as fatigue and overall quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer, a randomized controlled trial found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with metastatic breast cancer often experience issues with sexual health. Data on the effectiveness of interventions such as exercise are lacking.
• The PREFERABLE-EFFECT trial enrolled 355 women (mean age, 55.4 years) with metastatic breast cancer; 75% had received first- or second-line treatment at enrollment, and 68% had bone metastases.
• Trial participants were randomly allocated to either usual care or a 9-month (twice weekly) supervised exercise program combining aerobic, resistance, and balance exercises. All participants received general exercise advice and an activity tracker.
• Patients were assessed at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Exercise intervention effects were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis with mixed models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, most women showed no interest in sexual activity, and 60% were not sexually active. Nearly half (46%) of sexually active women reported no or little sexual enjoyment. Low sexual function was associated with depression and older age.
• Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, 27% reported vaginal pain and 40% reported vaginal dryness during sexual activity.
• The exercise intervention significantly improved sexual functioning (effect size = 0.28; P = .003) and endocrine sexual symptoms (effect size = 0.25; P = .003) at 6 months, and these effects were sustained at 9 months. Sexual enjoyment also appeared to improve in the exercise group, but due to the small sample size, this was not a statistically significant effect.
• Prior results from the trial showed that the exercise program had significant benefits for fatigue and overall quality of life (primary outcomes).

IN PRACTICE:

Patients with metastatic breast cancer “often suffer from sexual health issues and this topic should be addressed by clinicians,” said study presenter Martina Schmidt, PhD, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg.

“Physical exercise should be a crucial component of the prescription we offer to our patients,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

SOURCE:

The research (abstract 269MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research needs to be done to determine the optimal role of exercise in addressing symptom burden.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Schmidt has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

TOPLINE:

A rapid recommendation update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) offers guidance on use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, abemaciclib and ribociclib, for the adjuvant treatment of stage II and III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
• The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).

TAKEAWAY:

• Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
• Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
• For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
• Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
• Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.

SOURCE:

The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.

TOPLINE:

A rapid recommendation update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) offers guidance on use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, abemaciclib and ribociclib, for the adjuvant treatment of stage II and III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
• The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).

TAKEAWAY:

• Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
• Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
• For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
• Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
• Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.

SOURCE:

The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.

TOPLINE:

A rapid recommendation update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) offers guidance on use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, abemaciclib and ribociclib, for the adjuvant treatment of stage II and III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
• The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).

TAKEAWAY:

• Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
• Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
• For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
• Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
• Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.

SOURCE:

The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

TOPLINE:

In women with gestational diabetes (GD), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) shows elevated glycemic metrics earlier in pregnancy compared with the standard oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Earlier diagnosis and treatment of GDM may mitigate some perinatal risks, but the traditional OGTT at 24-28 weeks’ gestation delivers inconsistent results in early pregnancy, potentially leading to missed cases or overdiagnosis.
• This prospective noninterventional observational study conducted at two US academic-based clinical sites from June 2020 to December 2021 assessed CGM-derived glycemic patterns in 768 participants (mean age, 33 years; 77% White) enrolled prior to 17 weeks’ gestation with singleton pregnancy and an initial A1c level < 6.5%.
• Participants were encouraged to wear a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro CGM System sensor continuously until the day of delivery, with a median CGM wear duration of 67 days prior to OGTT.
• GDM was diagnosed using an OGTT conducted between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation, which sorted women into those with GDM (n = 58) or without GDM (n = 710).
• CGM-derived glycemic patterns were compared between the participants with and without GDM.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM had a higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs 100 ± 8 mg/dL; P < .001) and greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs 19 ± 3; P < .001) than those without GDM throughout the gestational period prior to OGTT.
• Women with GDM spent lesser time in glycemic ranges of 63-140 mg/dL (87% ± 11% vs 94% ± 4%; P < .001) and 63-120 mg/dL (70% ± 17% vs 84% ± 8%; P < .001) throughout gestation than those without GDM prior to OGTT.
• The daytime and overnight mean glucose levels were higher in those with vs without GDM and attributed to increased hyperglycemia rather than decreased hypoglycemia, with those with GDM spending more time > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL and less time < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL.
• Mean glucose and percent time in the > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL ranges were higher in those with GDM as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation, which persisted at each 2-week period prior to OGTT.

IN PRACTICE:

“CGM could be used in addition to or instead of OGTT to screen individuals at risk for hyperglycemia during pregnancy, even as early as the first trimester,” the authors wrote, adding that “CGM could potentially play a pivotal role in providing timely identification of distinct glycemic patterns indicative of early dysglycemia.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Celeste Durnwald, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

To include participants with possible early GDM, the study allowed the inclusion of up to 14 days of CGM data after OGTT in the overall gestational period and up to 10 days in the first and second trimesters. A detailed analysis of glycemia at the earliest timepoint of pregnancy could not be conducted as the first trimester data were limited. The findings may not be generalizable to a population with gestational hyperglycemia, as only 58 participants were identified with GDM using OGTT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and UnitedHealth Group. Some authors reported performing advisory work, receiving research support and consultancy fees, and being on scientific advisory boards through their employer, while several authors reported that their institution received funds on their behalf from various pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical device companies.

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

TOPLINE:

In women with gestational diabetes (GD), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) shows elevated glycemic metrics earlier in pregnancy compared with the standard oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Earlier diagnosis and treatment of GDM may mitigate some perinatal risks, but the traditional OGTT at 24-28 weeks’ gestation delivers inconsistent results in early pregnancy, potentially leading to missed cases or overdiagnosis.
• This prospective noninterventional observational study conducted at two US academic-based clinical sites from June 2020 to December 2021 assessed CGM-derived glycemic patterns in 768 participants (mean age, 33 years; 77% White) enrolled prior to 17 weeks’ gestation with singleton pregnancy and an initial A1c level < 6.5%.
• Participants were encouraged to wear a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro CGM System sensor continuously until the day of delivery, with a median CGM wear duration of 67 days prior to OGTT.
• GDM was diagnosed using an OGTT conducted between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation, which sorted women into those with GDM (n = 58) or without GDM (n = 710).
• CGM-derived glycemic patterns were compared between the participants with and without GDM.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM had a higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs 100 ± 8 mg/dL; P < .001) and greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs 19 ± 3; P < .001) than those without GDM throughout the gestational period prior to OGTT.
• Women with GDM spent lesser time in glycemic ranges of 63-140 mg/dL (87% ± 11% vs 94% ± 4%; P < .001) and 63-120 mg/dL (70% ± 17% vs 84% ± 8%; P < .001) throughout gestation than those without GDM prior to OGTT.
• The daytime and overnight mean glucose levels were higher in those with vs without GDM and attributed to increased hyperglycemia rather than decreased hypoglycemia, with those with GDM spending more time > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL and less time < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL.
• Mean glucose and percent time in the > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL ranges were higher in those with GDM as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation, which persisted at each 2-week period prior to OGTT.

IN PRACTICE:

“CGM could be used in addition to or instead of OGTT to screen individuals at risk for hyperglycemia during pregnancy, even as early as the first trimester,” the authors wrote, adding that “CGM could potentially play a pivotal role in providing timely identification of distinct glycemic patterns indicative of early dysglycemia.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Celeste Durnwald, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

To include participants with possible early GDM, the study allowed the inclusion of up to 14 days of CGM data after OGTT in the overall gestational period and up to 10 days in the first and second trimesters. A detailed analysis of glycemia at the earliest timepoint of pregnancy could not be conducted as the first trimester data were limited. The findings may not be generalizable to a population with gestational hyperglycemia, as only 58 participants were identified with GDM using OGTT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and UnitedHealth Group. Some authors reported performing advisory work, receiving research support and consultancy fees, and being on scientific advisory boards through their employer, while several authors reported that their institution received funds on their behalf from various pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical device companies.

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

TOPLINE:

In women with gestational diabetes (GD), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) shows elevated glycemic metrics earlier in pregnancy compared with the standard oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

METHODOLOGY:

• Earlier diagnosis and treatment of GDM may mitigate some perinatal risks, but the traditional OGTT at 24-28 weeks’ gestation delivers inconsistent results in early pregnancy, potentially leading to missed cases or overdiagnosis.
• This prospective noninterventional observational study conducted at two US academic-based clinical sites from June 2020 to December 2021 assessed CGM-derived glycemic patterns in 768 participants (mean age, 33 years; 77% White) enrolled prior to 17 weeks’ gestation with singleton pregnancy and an initial A1c level < 6.5%.
• Participants were encouraged to wear a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro CGM System sensor continuously until the day of delivery, with a median CGM wear duration of 67 days prior to OGTT.
• GDM was diagnosed using an OGTT conducted between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation, which sorted women into those with GDM (n = 58) or without GDM (n = 710).
• CGM-derived glycemic patterns were compared between the participants with and without GDM.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM had a higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs 100 ± 8 mg/dL; P < .001) and greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs 19 ± 3; P < .001) than those without GDM throughout the gestational period prior to OGTT.
• Women with GDM spent lesser time in glycemic ranges of 63-140 mg/dL (87% ± 11% vs 94% ± 4%; P < .001) and 63-120 mg/dL (70% ± 17% vs 84% ± 8%; P < .001) throughout gestation than those without GDM prior to OGTT.
• The daytime and overnight mean glucose levels were higher in those with vs without GDM and attributed to increased hyperglycemia rather than decreased hypoglycemia, with those with GDM spending more time > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL and less time < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL.
• Mean glucose and percent time in the > 120 mg/dL and > 140 mg/dL ranges were higher in those with GDM as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation, which persisted at each 2-week period prior to OGTT.

IN PRACTICE:

“CGM could be used in addition to or instead of OGTT to screen individuals at risk for hyperglycemia during pregnancy, even as early as the first trimester,” the authors wrote, adding that “CGM could potentially play a pivotal role in providing timely identification of distinct glycemic patterns indicative of early dysglycemia.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Celeste Durnwald, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

To include participants with possible early GDM, the study allowed the inclusion of up to 14 days of CGM data after OGTT in the overall gestational period and up to 10 days in the first and second trimesters. A detailed analysis of glycemia at the earliest timepoint of pregnancy could not be conducted as the first trimester data were limited. The findings may not be generalizable to a population with gestational hyperglycemia, as only 58 participants were identified with GDM using OGTT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and UnitedHealth Group. Some authors reported performing advisory work, receiving research support and consultancy fees, and being on scientific advisory boards through their employer, while several authors reported that their institution received funds on their behalf from various pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical device companies.

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

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.