Ob.Gyn. News

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

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.