User login
Do Real-World Data Support Omitting Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early Stage Breast Cancer?
a new study finds.
This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.
The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.
Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?
The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.
The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.
In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.
“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.
What Did the New Study Show?
In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.
The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.
The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.
“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound.
What Are the Clinical Implications?
The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.
“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.
“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.
“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?
The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.
“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.
“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.
Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.
a new study finds.
This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.
The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.
Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?
The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.
The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.
In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.
“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.
What Did the New Study Show?
In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.
The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.
The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.
“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound.
What Are the Clinical Implications?
The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.
“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.
“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.
“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?
The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.
“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.
“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.
Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.
a new study finds.
This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.
Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.
The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.
Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?
The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.
The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.
In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.
“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.
What Did the New Study Show?
In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.
The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.
The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.
“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound.
What Are the Clinical Implications?
The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.
“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.
“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.
“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?
The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.
“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.
“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.
Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BREAST SURGEONS
What to Know About the Next-Gen FIT for CRC Screening
These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.
Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.
But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.
In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.
Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes.
Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that.
Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test
An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.
In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces.
The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.
Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.
Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%.
However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.
Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.
Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test
ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC.
The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays.
Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.
The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations.
ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.
However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.
Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
Multitarget Protein-Based Test
The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer.
A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias.
In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.
Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants.
In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT.
But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).
Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.
As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions.
Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.
In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.
Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.
The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.
Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy.
Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.
Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.
But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.
In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.
Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes.
Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that.
Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test
An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.
In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces.
The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.
Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.
Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%.
However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.
Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.
Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test
ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC.
The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays.
Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.
The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations.
ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.
However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.
Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
Multitarget Protein-Based Test
The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer.
A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias.
In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.
Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants.
In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT.
But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).
Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.
As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions.
Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.
In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.
Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.
The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.
Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy.
Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.
Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.
But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.
In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.
Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes.
Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that.
Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test
An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.
In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces.
The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.
Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.
Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%.
However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.
Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.
Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test
ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC.
The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays.
Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.
The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations.
ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.
However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.
Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
Multitarget Protein-Based Test
The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer.
A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias.
In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.
Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants.
In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT.
But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).
Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.
As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions.
Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.
In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.
Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.
The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.
Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy.
Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat MCED Testing May ID Early-Stage and Unscreened Cancers
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
FROM AACR 2024
Medicine or Politics? Doctors Defend Their Social Activism
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ImPrint Identifies Patients With Breast Cancer Likely to Respond to Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
Combo Therapy Prolongs Survival in Gastric Cancer Patients, Regardless of PD-L1 Expression
, according to a new study.
Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.
Unmet Need
The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.
He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.
Study Design
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.
In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.
“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS
Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).
Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.
“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.
Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).
“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression
In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.
The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).
Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable
The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.
During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.
Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?
According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.
“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.
Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.
“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.
She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.
“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.
COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.
, according to a new study.
Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.
Unmet Need
The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.
He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.
Study Design
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.
In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.
“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS
Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).
Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.
“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.
Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).
“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression
In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.
The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).
Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable
The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.
During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.
Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?
According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.
“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.
Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.
“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.
She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.
“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.
COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.
, according to a new study.
Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.
Unmet Need
The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.
He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.
Study Design
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.
In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.
“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS
Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).
Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.
“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.
Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).
“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”
Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression
In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.
The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).
Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable
The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.
During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.
Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?
According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.
“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.
Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.
“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.
She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.
“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.
COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.
FROM AACR 2024
FDA Expands Enhertu Indication to HER2-Positive Solid Tumors
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Trials in Prostate Cancer: Could Your Patient Benefit?
Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer
Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).
One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.
Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.
MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.
One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.
US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.
Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.
Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
High-risk prostate cancer
People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.
SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.
In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”
Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.
Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.
For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer
Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).
One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.
Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.
MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.
One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.
US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.
Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.
Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
High-risk prostate cancer
People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.
SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.
In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”
Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.
Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.
For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer
Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).
One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.
Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.
MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.
One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.
US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.
Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.
Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
High-risk prostate cancer
People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.
SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.
In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”
Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer
People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.
Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.
For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov
Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes Predict Better Breast Cancer Outcomes?
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
FROM JAMA
Oncology Practice and Lab to Pay $4 Million in Kickback Case
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.