User login
FDA’s Project Optimus aims to transform early cancer research
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
AT SITC 2023
When to treat DLBCL with radiotherapy?
SAN DIEGO –
For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.
Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.
Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”
These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.
Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”
What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”
According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.
In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.
“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”
If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.
What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.
In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”
In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.
She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.
As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.
Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.
She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.
Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
SAN DIEGO –
For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.
Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.
Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”
These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.
Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”
What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”
According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.
In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.
“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”
If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.
What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.
In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”
In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.
She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.
As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.
Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.
She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.
Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
SAN DIEGO –
For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.
Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.
Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”
These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.
Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”
What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”
According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.
In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.
“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”
If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.
What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.
In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”
In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.
She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.
As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.
Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.
She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.
Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
FROM ASTRO 2023
Safely skip PET2 after brentuximab in Hodgkin lymphoma?
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibody shows promise in preventing GVHD
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
FROM SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
ESMO helps hematologists assess new cancer drugs
It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.
Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.
On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.
The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.
The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.
To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.
Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.
The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.
ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.
It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.
Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.
On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.
The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.
The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.
To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.
Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.
The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.
ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.
It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.
Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.
On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.
The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.
The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.
To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.
Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.
The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.
ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.
FROM ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Multiprong strategy makes clinical trials less White
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
CBSM phone app eases anxiety, depression in cancer patients
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.
Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.
A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.
In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.
The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.
“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.
“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
Impressive and elegant
“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.
“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.
CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.
To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.
Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.
They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
High-quality control
Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”
“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.
A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.
The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).
CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)
An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.
The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.
“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”
The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Huge underuse of germline testing for cancer patients
Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.
The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.
The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.
“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”
Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.
“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.
They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.
“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.
At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.
The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.
Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.
One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.
“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.
Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
Details of the study
Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.
It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.
She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”
However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.
The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.
The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.
The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.
Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.
Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.
Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.
Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.
The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.
By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.
The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.
Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.
There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.
However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.
The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).
With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).
Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.
She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.
The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.
The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.
“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”
Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.
“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.
They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.
“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.
At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.
The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.
Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.
One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.
“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.
Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
Details of the study
Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.
It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.
She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”
However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.
The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.
The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.
The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.
Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.
Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.
Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.
Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.
The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.
By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.
The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.
Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.
There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.
However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.
The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).
With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).
Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.
She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.
The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.
The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.
“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”
Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.
“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.
They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.
“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.
At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.
The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.
Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.
One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.
“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.
Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
Details of the study
Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.
It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.
She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”
However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.
The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.
The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.
The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.
Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.
Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.
Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.
Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.
The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.
By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.
The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.
Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.
There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.
However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.
The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).
With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).
Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.
She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
DEI training gives oncology fellows more confidence
The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.
“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”
Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.
The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).
At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.
First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.
Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.
Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.
“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”
Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.
The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.
The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.
Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.
Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.
“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”
No funding for the study was reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.
“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”
Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.
The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).
At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.
First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.
Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.
Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.
“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”
Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.
The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.
The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.
Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.
Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.
“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”
No funding for the study was reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.
“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”
Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.
The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).
At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.
First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.
Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.
Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.
“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”
Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.
The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.
The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.
Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.
Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.
“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”
No funding for the study was reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2023
Drugmakers are abandoning cheap generics, and now U.S. cancer patients can’t get meds
On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.
Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.
The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.
But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?
“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”
“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.
“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”
The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.
Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.
“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”
Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.
At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.
On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.
She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”
Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
Generics manufacturers are pulling out
The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.
The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.
The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.
Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.
Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”
Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.
“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
Should government step in?
Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.
As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.
Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”
More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.
“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.
Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.
In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.
“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.
Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.
The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.
But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?
“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”
“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.
“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”
The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.
Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.
“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”
Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.
At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.
On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.
She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”
Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
Generics manufacturers are pulling out
The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.
The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.
The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.
Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.
Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”
Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.
“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
Should government step in?
Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.
As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.
Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”
More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.
“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.
Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.
In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.
“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.
Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.
The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.
But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?
“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”
“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.
“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”
The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.
Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.
“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”
Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.
At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.
On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.
She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”
Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
Generics manufacturers are pulling out
The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.
The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.
Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.
The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.
Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.
Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”
Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.
“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
Should government step in?
Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.
As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.
Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”
More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.
“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.
Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.
In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.
“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.