Clinical Topics & News

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – Although endoscopic resection of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is associated with excellent overall survival, recurrence can occur years later, emphasizing the need for long-term surveillance, according to investigators.

Recurrence was about twice as common among patients lacking complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) upon follow-up, reported lead author Kevin Song, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., and colleagues.

“Endoscopic resection of early-stage EAC has gained acceptance in recent years,” Dr. Song said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “While studies have demonstrated promising outcomes for short-term remission and recurrence, little is known about long-term recurrence and EAC-related mortality beyond 5 years.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Song and colleagues reviewed data from 98 patients who had undergone endoscopic resection of T1 EAC at four tertiary academic centers with follow-up of at least 5 years. CRIM was defined by negative biopsies from the tubular esophagus and the gastroesophageal junction at one posttreatment surveillance endoscopy. Early recurrence was defined by a 2-year limit.

After a median follow-up of 8.76 years, 93 out of 98 patients (95%) experienced remission, while 82 patients (84%) demonstrated CRIM. Fourteen patients (14%) had recurrence of EAC, among whom eight (57%) had early recurrence at a median of 0.75 years (interquartile range, 0.43-0.80 years), while the other six (43%) had late recurrence at a median of 7.7 years (IQR, 5.20-8.77 years). Among the 93 patients entering remission, five (5.38%) had recurrence after 5 years.

CRIM was associated with a significantly lower rate of recurrence (11% vs. 46%; P = .01), generating an odds ratio of 6.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.71-26.71). Patients with CRIM also had later recurrence, at a median of 5.20 years, compared with 0.81 years for patients without CRIM. Moreover, the overall EAC-related mortality rate was 6.45%.

Dr. Song noted excellent overall survival and concluded his presentation by emphasizing the predictive value of CRIM and the need for long-term surveillance.

“CRIM should be considered the most significant endpoint for endotherapy of T1 EAC,” he said. “Surveillance is important even when early recurrence is not observed.”

Rishindra M. Reddy, MD, professor of thoracic surgery at the University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, agreed “100%” with Dr. Song and colleagues’ conclusion about the need for long-term surveillance.

“We struggle, in our patient population, to get people to do regular surveillance,” he said. “I think you have to have patients who have regular access to their gastroenterologist or surgeons and are willing to come in every 3 months to 6 months for surveillance endoscopies as well as CT scans.”

Dr. Reddy recommended that endoscopic resection of EAC be handled at high-volume centers.

“This really needs to be done in a multidisciplinary setting where you have both experienced endoscopists and thoracic surgeons and/or surgical oncologists who do esophagectomies to make these decisions about optimal treatment,” he said, “as well as pathologists who are more experienced in what to look for in terms of depth or lateral margins.”

The present work is a “great first study,” Dr. Reddy said. He suggested that larger real-world trials are needed to confirm findings and compare outcomes between tumor subtypes.

“I think for T1a tumors, there’s a good consensus on endoscopic mucosal resection,” he said. “I think T1b is an area where we would suggest more often doing surgery… and there’s even some nuance at a T1a level about the depth. It would be helpful to understand the risks of recurrence after [resecting] different levels of T1 tumors.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with CDX, Interpace, Lucid, and others. Dr. Reddy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

LAS VEGAS – Although endoscopic resection of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is associated with excellent overall survival, recurrence can occur years later, emphasizing the need for long-term surveillance, according to investigators.

Recurrence was about twice as common among patients lacking complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) upon follow-up, reported lead author Kevin Song, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., and colleagues.

“Endoscopic resection of early-stage EAC has gained acceptance in recent years,” Dr. Song said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “While studies have demonstrated promising outcomes for short-term remission and recurrence, little is known about long-term recurrence and EAC-related mortality beyond 5 years.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Song and colleagues reviewed data from 98 patients who had undergone endoscopic resection of T1 EAC at four tertiary academic centers with follow-up of at least 5 years. CRIM was defined by negative biopsies from the tubular esophagus and the gastroesophageal junction at one posttreatment surveillance endoscopy. Early recurrence was defined by a 2-year limit.

After a median follow-up of 8.76 years, 93 out of 98 patients (95%) experienced remission, while 82 patients (84%) demonstrated CRIM. Fourteen patients (14%) had recurrence of EAC, among whom eight (57%) had early recurrence at a median of 0.75 years (interquartile range, 0.43-0.80 years), while the other six (43%) had late recurrence at a median of 7.7 years (IQR, 5.20-8.77 years). Among the 93 patients entering remission, five (5.38%) had recurrence after 5 years.

CRIM was associated with a significantly lower rate of recurrence (11% vs. 46%; P = .01), generating an odds ratio of 6.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.71-26.71). Patients with CRIM also had later recurrence, at a median of 5.20 years, compared with 0.81 years for patients without CRIM. Moreover, the overall EAC-related mortality rate was 6.45%.

Dr. Song noted excellent overall survival and concluded his presentation by emphasizing the predictive value of CRIM and the need for long-term surveillance.

“CRIM should be considered the most significant endpoint for endotherapy of T1 EAC,” he said. “Surveillance is important even when early recurrence is not observed.”

Rishindra M. Reddy, MD, professor of thoracic surgery at the University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, agreed “100%” with Dr. Song and colleagues’ conclusion about the need for long-term surveillance.

“We struggle, in our patient population, to get people to do regular surveillance,” he said. “I think you have to have patients who have regular access to their gastroenterologist or surgeons and are willing to come in every 3 months to 6 months for surveillance endoscopies as well as CT scans.”

Dr. Reddy recommended that endoscopic resection of EAC be handled at high-volume centers.

“This really needs to be done in a multidisciplinary setting where you have both experienced endoscopists and thoracic surgeons and/or surgical oncologists who do esophagectomies to make these decisions about optimal treatment,” he said, “as well as pathologists who are more experienced in what to look for in terms of depth or lateral margins.”

The present work is a “great first study,” Dr. Reddy said. He suggested that larger real-world trials are needed to confirm findings and compare outcomes between tumor subtypes.

“I think for T1a tumors, there’s a good consensus on endoscopic mucosal resection,” he said. “I think T1b is an area where we would suggest more often doing surgery… and there’s even some nuance at a T1a level about the depth. It would be helpful to understand the risks of recurrence after [resecting] different levels of T1 tumors.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with CDX, Interpace, Lucid, and others. Dr. Reddy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

LAS VEGAS – Although endoscopic resection of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is associated with excellent overall survival, recurrence can occur years later, emphasizing the need for long-term surveillance, according to investigators.

Recurrence was about twice as common among patients lacking complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) upon follow-up, reported lead author Kevin Song, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., and colleagues.

“Endoscopic resection of early-stage EAC has gained acceptance in recent years,” Dr. Song said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “While studies have demonstrated promising outcomes for short-term remission and recurrence, little is known about long-term recurrence and EAC-related mortality beyond 5 years.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Song and colleagues reviewed data from 98 patients who had undergone endoscopic resection of T1 EAC at four tertiary academic centers with follow-up of at least 5 years. CRIM was defined by negative biopsies from the tubular esophagus and the gastroesophageal junction at one posttreatment surveillance endoscopy. Early recurrence was defined by a 2-year limit.

After a median follow-up of 8.76 years, 93 out of 98 patients (95%) experienced remission, while 82 patients (84%) demonstrated CRIM. Fourteen patients (14%) had recurrence of EAC, among whom eight (57%) had early recurrence at a median of 0.75 years (interquartile range, 0.43-0.80 years), while the other six (43%) had late recurrence at a median of 7.7 years (IQR, 5.20-8.77 years). Among the 93 patients entering remission, five (5.38%) had recurrence after 5 years.

CRIM was associated with a significantly lower rate of recurrence (11% vs. 46%; P = .01), generating an odds ratio of 6.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.71-26.71). Patients with CRIM also had later recurrence, at a median of 5.20 years, compared with 0.81 years for patients without CRIM. Moreover, the overall EAC-related mortality rate was 6.45%.

Dr. Song noted excellent overall survival and concluded his presentation by emphasizing the predictive value of CRIM and the need for long-term surveillance.

“CRIM should be considered the most significant endpoint for endotherapy of T1 EAC,” he said. “Surveillance is important even when early recurrence is not observed.”

Rishindra M. Reddy, MD, professor of thoracic surgery at the University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, agreed “100%” with Dr. Song and colleagues’ conclusion about the need for long-term surveillance.

“We struggle, in our patient population, to get people to do regular surveillance,” he said. “I think you have to have patients who have regular access to their gastroenterologist or surgeons and are willing to come in every 3 months to 6 months for surveillance endoscopies as well as CT scans.”

Dr. Reddy recommended that endoscopic resection of EAC be handled at high-volume centers.

“This really needs to be done in a multidisciplinary setting where you have both experienced endoscopists and thoracic surgeons and/or surgical oncologists who do esophagectomies to make these decisions about optimal treatment,” he said, “as well as pathologists who are more experienced in what to look for in terms of depth or lateral margins.”

The present work is a “great first study,” Dr. Reddy said. He suggested that larger real-world trials are needed to confirm findings and compare outcomes between tumor subtypes.

“I think for T1a tumors, there’s a good consensus on endoscopic mucosal resection,” he said. “I think T1b is an area where we would suggest more often doing surgery… and there’s even some nuance at a T1a level about the depth. It would be helpful to understand the risks of recurrence after [resecting] different levels of T1 tumors.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with CDX, Interpace, Lucid, and others. Dr. Reddy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A New Mexico oncologist has once again found himself at odds with the law.    

Mohamed Aswad, MD, was still under probation for a past misdemeanor involving misbranded cancer drugs when he allegedly underdosed chemotherapy in a patient with colon cancer. The patient later died.

In a wrongful death case, a jury has awarded $2.3 million in damages to the patient’s wife. The patient, James Hoag, was diagnosed with stage IIIB colon cancer in 2015. He underwent surgery and then went for chemotherapy to Dr. Aswad, who was the only oncologist in the area.

Mr. Hoag’s attorneys alleged that Dr. Aswad “recklessly administered” abnormally low doses of chemotherapy, and dragged out the normal 6-month regimen to 14 months, in an attempt to “unduly profit.”

“It was statistically likely that James would beat his cancer with proper treatment,” said his lawyers during the trial, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

The jury deliberated for only 4 hours, and found that negligence by Dr. Aswad was a proximate cause of the patient’s “lost chance to avoid the loss of his life and resulting damages,” and the jury further described Dr. Aswad’s actions as “wanton,” according to a verdict form filed in the case.

The form also shows that the jury decided Dr. Aswad had obtained Mr. Hoag’s informed consent as to the treatment, but still felt that negligence was a cause of Mr. Hoag’s injury and damages. The original judgment of $2.9 million in damages was subsequently reduced to $2.3 million as the jury found Mr. Hoag was 30% responsible for his injuries.

Dr. Aswad could not be reached for comment. The Albuquerque Journal reports that he plans to appeal the verdict.
 

Only oncologist in the county

The patient had lived in the rural community of Deming, N.M. following his retirement from a career in law enforcement in Michigan. He was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2015, underwent surgical resection, and then went to Dr. Aswad for follow-up chemotherapy.

Dr. Aswad was the only oncologist in the area. Like many other rural communities throughout the United States, this region has a severe shortage of medical specialists.

Sheila Hoag, the patient’s widow, testified during the trial that following her husband’s surgery in August 2015, which removed the tumor, his “prognosis was very good because they had caught it before it spread.” He had an estimated 5-year survival of about 69%.

However, even though Dr. Aswad followed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy, he did not use the proper dosing. According to trial testimony, he administered “woefully lower doses” than are recommended, and also exceeded the recommended 6-month duration of chemotherapy by more than double. In addition, Dr. Aswad also failed to adequately monitor the disease during treatment, said Hoag’s lawyers.

Aswad has denied the charges and says that he prescribed a modified regimen spread out over a longer period of time because his patient had requested it. He said that Mr. Hoag did not want to undergo chemotherapy that could cause significant side effects, and this was the reason for the altered treatment plan.

However, the chemotherapy failed to slow the cancer’s progression, and Mr. Hoag never returned to see him after November 2016.

By December 2017, Mr. Hoag had been hospitalized and was being treated by another oncologist, located in Las Cruces, 62 miles away from his home. The new oncologist administered the standard treatment, but by then his cancer had metastasized. Mr. Hoag died in 2020 at age 59.
 

Previous misdemeanor with misbranded drugs

At the time he was treating Mr. Hoag, Dr. Aswad was on federal probation after pleading guilty in 2014 to one misdemeanor count of the unlawful introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.

Dr. Aswad had treated cancer patients with a “misbranded” drug imported from abroad and not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Altuzan is a form of bevacizumab that is approved for use in Turkey but not the United States. Between July 2010 and April 2012, Dr. Aswad ordered prescription cancer drugs, including Altuzan, from a Canadian company and then administered the “misbranded” drugs to his patients.

A prescription drug is considered to be “misbranded” if it is manufactured in a facility that has not been registered with the FDA for commercial distribution within the United States.

According to various media reports, Dr. Aswad paid significantly less for these drugs than he would have if had he purchased the U.S.-approved product bearing the same brand or generic name, and then billed federal programs such as Medicare for the full price. He has admitted to making just under $1.3 million in profits.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to three years of probation, required to pay just under $1.3 million in restitution to Medicare and Tricare, the victims of his criminal conduct, and also to forfeit $750,000, which represented part of his net criminal proceeds, to the United States.

At the trial, Dr. Aswad denied that there was any profit motive in extending Mr. Hoag’s treatment, and in a 2019 deposition, he also denied he was under financial pressure to increase his billings because of the $2 million debt that he owed because of the misbranded drugs fine.
 

Allowed to resume practice

In late 2015, Dr. Aswad was essentially barred by the federal government from accepting any reimbursement from Medicaid or Medicare for a minimum of 13 years. But because of the urgent need for medical specialists, the New Mexico Human Services Department requested a waiver that would permit him to continuing treating cancer patients since he is the only oncologist in Luna County.

He is currently allowed to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients in four other medically underserved New Mexico counties.

Dr. Aswad, a graduate of the University of Aleppo, in Syria, had an internal medicine residency at Our Lady of Mercy Hospital in New York City, where he also had a fellowship in oncology and hematology. He then settled in Deming and has been licensed in New Mexico since 2003.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused major disruption to healthcare services, Medicare & Medicaid Services officials requested that Dr. Aswad also be allowed to provide internal medicine services for Medicare patients in Catron and Hildalgo counties for the “duration of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 public health emergency declared by the federal government in January 2020.”

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

A New Mexico oncologist has once again found himself at odds with the law.    

Mohamed Aswad, MD, was still under probation for a past misdemeanor involving misbranded cancer drugs when he allegedly underdosed chemotherapy in a patient with colon cancer. The patient later died.

In a wrongful death case, a jury has awarded $2.3 million in damages to the patient’s wife. The patient, James Hoag, was diagnosed with stage IIIB colon cancer in 2015. He underwent surgery and then went for chemotherapy to Dr. Aswad, who was the only oncologist in the area.

Mr. Hoag’s attorneys alleged that Dr. Aswad “recklessly administered” abnormally low doses of chemotherapy, and dragged out the normal 6-month regimen to 14 months, in an attempt to “unduly profit.”

“It was statistically likely that James would beat his cancer with proper treatment,” said his lawyers during the trial, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

The jury deliberated for only 4 hours, and found that negligence by Dr. Aswad was a proximate cause of the patient’s “lost chance to avoid the loss of his life and resulting damages,” and the jury further described Dr. Aswad’s actions as “wanton,” according to a verdict form filed in the case.

The form also shows that the jury decided Dr. Aswad had obtained Mr. Hoag’s informed consent as to the treatment, but still felt that negligence was a cause of Mr. Hoag’s injury and damages. The original judgment of $2.9 million in damages was subsequently reduced to $2.3 million as the jury found Mr. Hoag was 30% responsible for his injuries.

Dr. Aswad could not be reached for comment. The Albuquerque Journal reports that he plans to appeal the verdict.
 

Only oncologist in the county

The patient had lived in the rural community of Deming, N.M. following his retirement from a career in law enforcement in Michigan. He was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2015, underwent surgical resection, and then went to Dr. Aswad for follow-up chemotherapy.

Dr. Aswad was the only oncologist in the area. Like many other rural communities throughout the United States, this region has a severe shortage of medical specialists.

Sheila Hoag, the patient’s widow, testified during the trial that following her husband’s surgery in August 2015, which removed the tumor, his “prognosis was very good because they had caught it before it spread.” He had an estimated 5-year survival of about 69%.

However, even though Dr. Aswad followed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy, he did not use the proper dosing. According to trial testimony, he administered “woefully lower doses” than are recommended, and also exceeded the recommended 6-month duration of chemotherapy by more than double. In addition, Dr. Aswad also failed to adequately monitor the disease during treatment, said Hoag’s lawyers.

Aswad has denied the charges and says that he prescribed a modified regimen spread out over a longer period of time because his patient had requested it. He said that Mr. Hoag did not want to undergo chemotherapy that could cause significant side effects, and this was the reason for the altered treatment plan.

However, the chemotherapy failed to slow the cancer’s progression, and Mr. Hoag never returned to see him after November 2016.

By December 2017, Mr. Hoag had been hospitalized and was being treated by another oncologist, located in Las Cruces, 62 miles away from his home. The new oncologist administered the standard treatment, but by then his cancer had metastasized. Mr. Hoag died in 2020 at age 59.
 

Previous misdemeanor with misbranded drugs

At the time he was treating Mr. Hoag, Dr. Aswad was on federal probation after pleading guilty in 2014 to one misdemeanor count of the unlawful introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.

Dr. Aswad had treated cancer patients with a “misbranded” drug imported from abroad and not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Altuzan is a form of bevacizumab that is approved for use in Turkey but not the United States. Between July 2010 and April 2012, Dr. Aswad ordered prescription cancer drugs, including Altuzan, from a Canadian company and then administered the “misbranded” drugs to his patients.

A prescription drug is considered to be “misbranded” if it is manufactured in a facility that has not been registered with the FDA for commercial distribution within the United States.

According to various media reports, Dr. Aswad paid significantly less for these drugs than he would have if had he purchased the U.S.-approved product bearing the same brand or generic name, and then billed federal programs such as Medicare for the full price. He has admitted to making just under $1.3 million in profits.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to three years of probation, required to pay just under $1.3 million in restitution to Medicare and Tricare, the victims of his criminal conduct, and also to forfeit $750,000, which represented part of his net criminal proceeds, to the United States.

At the trial, Dr. Aswad denied that there was any profit motive in extending Mr. Hoag’s treatment, and in a 2019 deposition, he also denied he was under financial pressure to increase his billings because of the $2 million debt that he owed because of the misbranded drugs fine.
 

Allowed to resume practice

In late 2015, Dr. Aswad was essentially barred by the federal government from accepting any reimbursement from Medicaid or Medicare for a minimum of 13 years. But because of the urgent need for medical specialists, the New Mexico Human Services Department requested a waiver that would permit him to continuing treating cancer patients since he is the only oncologist in Luna County.

He is currently allowed to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients in four other medically underserved New Mexico counties.

Dr. Aswad, a graduate of the University of Aleppo, in Syria, had an internal medicine residency at Our Lady of Mercy Hospital in New York City, where he also had a fellowship in oncology and hematology. He then settled in Deming and has been licensed in New Mexico since 2003.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused major disruption to healthcare services, Medicare & Medicaid Services officials requested that Dr. Aswad also be allowed to provide internal medicine services for Medicare patients in Catron and Hildalgo counties for the “duration of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 public health emergency declared by the federal government in January 2020.”

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

A New Mexico oncologist has once again found himself at odds with the law.    

Mohamed Aswad, MD, was still under probation for a past misdemeanor involving misbranded cancer drugs when he allegedly underdosed chemotherapy in a patient with colon cancer. The patient later died.

In a wrongful death case, a jury has awarded $2.3 million in damages to the patient’s wife. The patient, James Hoag, was diagnosed with stage IIIB colon cancer in 2015. He underwent surgery and then went for chemotherapy to Dr. Aswad, who was the only oncologist in the area.

Mr. Hoag’s attorneys alleged that Dr. Aswad “recklessly administered” abnormally low doses of chemotherapy, and dragged out the normal 6-month regimen to 14 months, in an attempt to “unduly profit.”

“It was statistically likely that James would beat his cancer with proper treatment,” said his lawyers during the trial, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

The jury deliberated for only 4 hours, and found that negligence by Dr. Aswad was a proximate cause of the patient’s “lost chance to avoid the loss of his life and resulting damages,” and the jury further described Dr. Aswad’s actions as “wanton,” according to a verdict form filed in the case.

The form also shows that the jury decided Dr. Aswad had obtained Mr. Hoag’s informed consent as to the treatment, but still felt that negligence was a cause of Mr. Hoag’s injury and damages. The original judgment of $2.9 million in damages was subsequently reduced to $2.3 million as the jury found Mr. Hoag was 30% responsible for his injuries.

Dr. Aswad could not be reached for comment. The Albuquerque Journal reports that he plans to appeal the verdict.
 

Only oncologist in the county

The patient had lived in the rural community of Deming, N.M. following his retirement from a career in law enforcement in Michigan. He was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2015, underwent surgical resection, and then went to Dr. Aswad for follow-up chemotherapy.

Dr. Aswad was the only oncologist in the area. Like many other rural communities throughout the United States, this region has a severe shortage of medical specialists.

Sheila Hoag, the patient’s widow, testified during the trial that following her husband’s surgery in August 2015, which removed the tumor, his “prognosis was very good because they had caught it before it spread.” He had an estimated 5-year survival of about 69%.

However, even though Dr. Aswad followed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy, he did not use the proper dosing. According to trial testimony, he administered “woefully lower doses” than are recommended, and also exceeded the recommended 6-month duration of chemotherapy by more than double. In addition, Dr. Aswad also failed to adequately monitor the disease during treatment, said Hoag’s lawyers.

Aswad has denied the charges and says that he prescribed a modified regimen spread out over a longer period of time because his patient had requested it. He said that Mr. Hoag did not want to undergo chemotherapy that could cause significant side effects, and this was the reason for the altered treatment plan.

However, the chemotherapy failed to slow the cancer’s progression, and Mr. Hoag never returned to see him after November 2016.

By December 2017, Mr. Hoag had been hospitalized and was being treated by another oncologist, located in Las Cruces, 62 miles away from his home. The new oncologist administered the standard treatment, but by then his cancer had metastasized. Mr. Hoag died in 2020 at age 59.
 

Previous misdemeanor with misbranded drugs

At the time he was treating Mr. Hoag, Dr. Aswad was on federal probation after pleading guilty in 2014 to one misdemeanor count of the unlawful introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.

Dr. Aswad had treated cancer patients with a “misbranded” drug imported from abroad and not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Altuzan is a form of bevacizumab that is approved for use in Turkey but not the United States. Between July 2010 and April 2012, Dr. Aswad ordered prescription cancer drugs, including Altuzan, from a Canadian company and then administered the “misbranded” drugs to his patients.

A prescription drug is considered to be “misbranded” if it is manufactured in a facility that has not been registered with the FDA for commercial distribution within the United States.

According to various media reports, Dr. Aswad paid significantly less for these drugs than he would have if had he purchased the U.S.-approved product bearing the same brand or generic name, and then billed federal programs such as Medicare for the full price. He has admitted to making just under $1.3 million in profits.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to three years of probation, required to pay just under $1.3 million in restitution to Medicare and Tricare, the victims of his criminal conduct, and also to forfeit $750,000, which represented part of his net criminal proceeds, to the United States.

At the trial, Dr. Aswad denied that there was any profit motive in extending Mr. Hoag’s treatment, and in a 2019 deposition, he also denied he was under financial pressure to increase his billings because of the $2 million debt that he owed because of the misbranded drugs fine.
 

Allowed to resume practice

In late 2015, Dr. Aswad was essentially barred by the federal government from accepting any reimbursement from Medicaid or Medicare for a minimum of 13 years. But because of the urgent need for medical specialists, the New Mexico Human Services Department requested a waiver that would permit him to continuing treating cancer patients since he is the only oncologist in Luna County.

He is currently allowed to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients in four other medically underserved New Mexico counties.

Dr. Aswad, a graduate of the University of Aleppo, in Syria, had an internal medicine residency at Our Lady of Mercy Hospital in New York City, where he also had a fellowship in oncology and hematology. He then settled in Deming and has been licensed in New Mexico since 2003.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused major disruption to healthcare services, Medicare & Medicaid Services officials requested that Dr. Aswad also be allowed to provide internal medicine services for Medicare patients in Catron and Hildalgo counties for the “duration of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 public health emergency declared by the federal government in January 2020.”

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

Cumulative annual revenue from cancer drug sales increased by 70% among the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies over the past decade, a retrospective analysis shows.

By comparison, revenues from other types of medications decreased by 18% during the same period.

“Cancer drugs now account for approximately 27% of new drug approvals in the United States, compared to 4% in the 1980s. During this period, there has also been a substantial increase in the price of cancer medicines,” Daniel E. Myers, MD, of the University of Calgary, Canada, and colleagues explain in their report, published online October 6 in Cancer.

To investigate the impact of these trends on pharmaceutical earnings, the investigators performed a retrospective analysis of the revenue generated from oncology drugs in comparison with total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies between 2010 and 2019, using itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings.

The data, adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 U.S. dollars, revealed that annual revenue for the 10 companies increased from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion during the study period. Most of the growth in revenue occurred in the past 5 years. Over the decade, non-oncology drug revenue decreased by 18% – from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion.

Overall, revenues from cancer drugs accounted for 25% of the net revenues generated by these companies in 2019, up from 14% in 2010. Roche had both the highest net revenue – $23.9 billion in 2010 and $27.7 billion in 2019 – and the greatest proportion of revenue from cancer drugs – 63.5% in 2016 and 57% in 2019.

Merck saw substantial growth in revenue from cancer drug sales, particularly between 2016 and 2019. In 2016, the company generated $2.4 billion from these medicines, representing 6% of total revenue. By 2019, that amount had grown to $12.3 billion, representing almost 30% of total revenue. This increase was driven largely by their drug pembrolizumab, which alone drew in about $11 billion in 2019, or 12% of total oncology revenue, the investigators note.

Sanofi and GSK had some of the lowest net revenues from cancer drugs during the study period. For instance, in 2019, GSK generated $300 million in revenue from oncology drugs, representing less than 1% of the company’s total revenue, down from 3% of its total revenue in 2010.

“With the cost of cancer drugs rapidly rising, further work is needed to understand how this [overall] increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and how this is linked (or not) to improvements in patient and population outcomes,” they conclude. Although data regarding how cancer drug development affects population mortality rates are limited, “there is a notion within biomedicine that rising corporate profitability may not translate into proportional societal gains.”

No funding for the study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cumulative annual revenue from cancer drug sales increased by 70% among the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies over the past decade, a retrospective analysis shows.

By comparison, revenues from other types of medications decreased by 18% during the same period.

“Cancer drugs now account for approximately 27% of new drug approvals in the United States, compared to 4% in the 1980s. During this period, there has also been a substantial increase in the price of cancer medicines,” Daniel E. Myers, MD, of the University of Calgary, Canada, and colleagues explain in their report, published online October 6 in Cancer.

To investigate the impact of these trends on pharmaceutical earnings, the investigators performed a retrospective analysis of the revenue generated from oncology drugs in comparison with total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies between 2010 and 2019, using itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings.

The data, adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 U.S. dollars, revealed that annual revenue for the 10 companies increased from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion during the study period. Most of the growth in revenue occurred in the past 5 years. Over the decade, non-oncology drug revenue decreased by 18% – from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion.

Overall, revenues from cancer drugs accounted for 25% of the net revenues generated by these companies in 2019, up from 14% in 2010. Roche had both the highest net revenue – $23.9 billion in 2010 and $27.7 billion in 2019 – and the greatest proportion of revenue from cancer drugs – 63.5% in 2016 and 57% in 2019.

Merck saw substantial growth in revenue from cancer drug sales, particularly between 2016 and 2019. In 2016, the company generated $2.4 billion from these medicines, representing 6% of total revenue. By 2019, that amount had grown to $12.3 billion, representing almost 30% of total revenue. This increase was driven largely by their drug pembrolizumab, which alone drew in about $11 billion in 2019, or 12% of total oncology revenue, the investigators note.

Sanofi and GSK had some of the lowest net revenues from cancer drugs during the study period. For instance, in 2019, GSK generated $300 million in revenue from oncology drugs, representing less than 1% of the company’s total revenue, down from 3% of its total revenue in 2010.

“With the cost of cancer drugs rapidly rising, further work is needed to understand how this [overall] increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and how this is linked (or not) to improvements in patient and population outcomes,” they conclude. Although data regarding how cancer drug development affects population mortality rates are limited, “there is a notion within biomedicine that rising corporate profitability may not translate into proportional societal gains.”

No funding for the study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cumulative annual revenue from cancer drug sales increased by 70% among the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies over the past decade, a retrospective analysis shows.

By comparison, revenues from other types of medications decreased by 18% during the same period.

“Cancer drugs now account for approximately 27% of new drug approvals in the United States, compared to 4% in the 1980s. During this period, there has also been a substantial increase in the price of cancer medicines,” Daniel E. Myers, MD, of the University of Calgary, Canada, and colleagues explain in their report, published online October 6 in Cancer.

To investigate the impact of these trends on pharmaceutical earnings, the investigators performed a retrospective analysis of the revenue generated from oncology drugs in comparison with total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies between 2010 and 2019, using itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings.

The data, adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 U.S. dollars, revealed that annual revenue for the 10 companies increased from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion during the study period. Most of the growth in revenue occurred in the past 5 years. Over the decade, non-oncology drug revenue decreased by 18% – from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion.

Overall, revenues from cancer drugs accounted for 25% of the net revenues generated by these companies in 2019, up from 14% in 2010. Roche had both the highest net revenue – $23.9 billion in 2010 and $27.7 billion in 2019 – and the greatest proportion of revenue from cancer drugs – 63.5% in 2016 and 57% in 2019.

Merck saw substantial growth in revenue from cancer drug sales, particularly between 2016 and 2019. In 2016, the company generated $2.4 billion from these medicines, representing 6% of total revenue. By 2019, that amount had grown to $12.3 billion, representing almost 30% of total revenue. This increase was driven largely by their drug pembrolizumab, which alone drew in about $11 billion in 2019, or 12% of total oncology revenue, the investigators note.

Sanofi and GSK had some of the lowest net revenues from cancer drugs during the study period. For instance, in 2019, GSK generated $300 million in revenue from oncology drugs, representing less than 1% of the company’s total revenue, down from 3% of its total revenue in 2010.

“With the cost of cancer drugs rapidly rising, further work is needed to understand how this [overall] increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and how this is linked (or not) to improvements in patient and population outcomes,” they conclude. Although data regarding how cancer drug development affects population mortality rates are limited, “there is a notion within biomedicine that rising corporate profitability may not translate into proportional societal gains.”

No funding for the study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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