User login
NHL: As a second-line treatment in phase 3 trial, tisa-cel disappoints
according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.
The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.
Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.
Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.
“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.
Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.
The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.
About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.
The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.
“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”
Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.
While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.
In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.
Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.
“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.
There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.
“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.
In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.
Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively.
Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.
Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.
according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.
The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.
Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.
Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.
“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.
Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.
The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.
About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.
The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.
“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”
Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.
While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.
In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.
Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.
“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.
There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.
“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.
In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.
Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively.
Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.
Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.
according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.
The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.
Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.
Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.
“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.
Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.
The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.
About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.
The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.
“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”
Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.
While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.
In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.
Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.
“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.
There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.
“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.
In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.
Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively.
Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.
Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.
FROM ASH 2021
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDER chief reflects on advances in rare diseases
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
Survey quantifies COVID-19’s impact on oncology
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
FROM ESMO 2020
Hepatitis screening now for all patients with cancer on therapy
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
American Cancer Society update: ‘It is best not to drink alcohol’
In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”
Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.
The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.
But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.
“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”
The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.
In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
Emphasis on three areas
The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.
Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.
“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.
The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.
A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.
The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.
The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”
Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.
The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
No smoking guns
Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.
Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”
Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”
Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.
The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.
But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.
“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”
The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.
In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
Emphasis on three areas
The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.
Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.
“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.
The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.
A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.
The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.
The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”
Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.
The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
No smoking guns
Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.
Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”
Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”
Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.
The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.
But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.
“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”
The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.
In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
Emphasis on three areas
The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.
Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.
“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.
The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.
A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.
The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.
The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”
Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.
The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
No smoking guns
Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.
Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”
Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCN guidelines highlight ‘complicated’ treatment for pediatric lymphomas
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
Study halted; ‘hyperprogression’ seen with nivolumab for R/R PTCL
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
CAR T-cell therapy found safe, effective for HIV-associated lymphoma
HIV positivity does not preclude chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for patients with aggressive lymphoma, a report of two cases suggests. Both of the HIV-positive patients, one of whom had long-term psychiatric comorbidity, achieved durable remission on axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) without undue toxicity.
“To our knowledge, these are the first reported cases of CAR T-cell therapy administered to HIV-infected patients with lymphoma,” Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and his colleagues wrote in Cancer. “Patients with HIV and AIDS, as well as those with preexisting mental illness, should not be considered disqualified from CAR T-cell therapy and deserve ongoing studies to optimize efficacy and safety in this population.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved two CAR T-cell products that target the B-cell antigen CD19 for the treatment of refractory lymphoma. But their efficacy and safety in HIV-positive patients are unknown because this group has been excluded from pivotal clinical trials.
Dr. Abramson and coauthors detail the two cases of successful anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel in patients with HIV-associated, refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma.
The first patient was an HIV-positive man with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of germinal center B-cell subtype who was intermittently adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His comorbidities included posttraumatic stress disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
Previous treatments for DLBCL included dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (EPOCH-R), and rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (RICE). A recurrence precluded high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support.
With close multidisciplinary management, including psychiatric consultation, the patient became a candidate for CAR T-cell therapy and received axicabtagene ciloleucel. He experienced grade 2 cytokine release syndrome and grade 3 neurologic toxicity, both of which resolved with treatment. Imaging showed complete remission at approximately 3 months that was sustained at 1 year. Additionally, he had an undetectable HIV viral load and was psychiatrically stable.
The second patient was a man with AIDS-associated, non–germinal center B-cell, Epstein-Barr virus–positive DLBCL who was adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His lymphoma had recurred rapidly after initially responding to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R and then was refractory to combination rituximab and lenalidomide. He previously had hepatitis B virus, cytomegalovirus, and Mycobacterium avium complex infections.
Because of prolonged cytopenias and infectious complications after the previous lymphoma treatments, the patient was considered a poor candidate for high-dose chemotherapy. He underwent CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel and had a complete remission on day 28. Additionally, his HIV infection remained well controlled.
“Although much remains to be learned regarding CAR T-cell therapy in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies, with or without HIV infection, the cases presented herein demonstrate that patients with chemotherapy-refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma can successfully undergo autologous CAR T-cell manufacturing, and subsequently can safely tolerate CAR T-cell therapy and achieve a durable complete remission,” the researchers wrote. “These cases have further demonstrated the proactive, multidisciplinary care required to navigate a patient with high-risk lymphoma through CAR T-cell therapy with attention to significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities.”
Dr. Abramson reported that he has acted as a paid member of the scientific advisory board and as a paid consultant for Kite Pharma, which markets Yescarta, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32411.
HIV positivity does not preclude chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for patients with aggressive lymphoma, a report of two cases suggests. Both of the HIV-positive patients, one of whom had long-term psychiatric comorbidity, achieved durable remission on axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) without undue toxicity.
“To our knowledge, these are the first reported cases of CAR T-cell therapy administered to HIV-infected patients with lymphoma,” Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and his colleagues wrote in Cancer. “Patients with HIV and AIDS, as well as those with preexisting mental illness, should not be considered disqualified from CAR T-cell therapy and deserve ongoing studies to optimize efficacy and safety in this population.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved two CAR T-cell products that target the B-cell antigen CD19 for the treatment of refractory lymphoma. But their efficacy and safety in HIV-positive patients are unknown because this group has been excluded from pivotal clinical trials.
Dr. Abramson and coauthors detail the two cases of successful anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel in patients with HIV-associated, refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma.
The first patient was an HIV-positive man with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of germinal center B-cell subtype who was intermittently adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His comorbidities included posttraumatic stress disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
Previous treatments for DLBCL included dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (EPOCH-R), and rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (RICE). A recurrence precluded high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support.
With close multidisciplinary management, including psychiatric consultation, the patient became a candidate for CAR T-cell therapy and received axicabtagene ciloleucel. He experienced grade 2 cytokine release syndrome and grade 3 neurologic toxicity, both of which resolved with treatment. Imaging showed complete remission at approximately 3 months that was sustained at 1 year. Additionally, he had an undetectable HIV viral load and was psychiatrically stable.
The second patient was a man with AIDS-associated, non–germinal center B-cell, Epstein-Barr virus–positive DLBCL who was adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His lymphoma had recurred rapidly after initially responding to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R and then was refractory to combination rituximab and lenalidomide. He previously had hepatitis B virus, cytomegalovirus, and Mycobacterium avium complex infections.
Because of prolonged cytopenias and infectious complications after the previous lymphoma treatments, the patient was considered a poor candidate for high-dose chemotherapy. He underwent CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel and had a complete remission on day 28. Additionally, his HIV infection remained well controlled.
“Although much remains to be learned regarding CAR T-cell therapy in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies, with or without HIV infection, the cases presented herein demonstrate that patients with chemotherapy-refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma can successfully undergo autologous CAR T-cell manufacturing, and subsequently can safely tolerate CAR T-cell therapy and achieve a durable complete remission,” the researchers wrote. “These cases have further demonstrated the proactive, multidisciplinary care required to navigate a patient with high-risk lymphoma through CAR T-cell therapy with attention to significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities.”
Dr. Abramson reported that he has acted as a paid member of the scientific advisory board and as a paid consultant for Kite Pharma, which markets Yescarta, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32411.
HIV positivity does not preclude chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for patients with aggressive lymphoma, a report of two cases suggests. Both of the HIV-positive patients, one of whom had long-term psychiatric comorbidity, achieved durable remission on axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) without undue toxicity.
“To our knowledge, these are the first reported cases of CAR T-cell therapy administered to HIV-infected patients with lymphoma,” Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and his colleagues wrote in Cancer. “Patients with HIV and AIDS, as well as those with preexisting mental illness, should not be considered disqualified from CAR T-cell therapy and deserve ongoing studies to optimize efficacy and safety in this population.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved two CAR T-cell products that target the B-cell antigen CD19 for the treatment of refractory lymphoma. But their efficacy and safety in HIV-positive patients are unknown because this group has been excluded from pivotal clinical trials.
Dr. Abramson and coauthors detail the two cases of successful anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel in patients with HIV-associated, refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma.
The first patient was an HIV-positive man with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of germinal center B-cell subtype who was intermittently adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His comorbidities included posttraumatic stress disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
Previous treatments for DLBCL included dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (EPOCH-R), and rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (RICE). A recurrence precluded high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support.
With close multidisciplinary management, including psychiatric consultation, the patient became a candidate for CAR T-cell therapy and received axicabtagene ciloleucel. He experienced grade 2 cytokine release syndrome and grade 3 neurologic toxicity, both of which resolved with treatment. Imaging showed complete remission at approximately 3 months that was sustained at 1 year. Additionally, he had an undetectable HIV viral load and was psychiatrically stable.
The second patient was a man with AIDS-associated, non–germinal center B-cell, Epstein-Barr virus–positive DLBCL who was adherent to antiretroviral therapy. His lymphoma had recurred rapidly after initially responding to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R and then was refractory to combination rituximab and lenalidomide. He previously had hepatitis B virus, cytomegalovirus, and Mycobacterium avium complex infections.
Because of prolonged cytopenias and infectious complications after the previous lymphoma treatments, the patient was considered a poor candidate for high-dose chemotherapy. He underwent CAR T-cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel and had a complete remission on day 28. Additionally, his HIV infection remained well controlled.
“Although much remains to be learned regarding CAR T-cell therapy in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies, with or without HIV infection, the cases presented herein demonstrate that patients with chemotherapy-refractory, high-grade B-cell lymphoma can successfully undergo autologous CAR T-cell manufacturing, and subsequently can safely tolerate CAR T-cell therapy and achieve a durable complete remission,” the researchers wrote. “These cases have further demonstrated the proactive, multidisciplinary care required to navigate a patient with high-risk lymphoma through CAR T-cell therapy with attention to significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities.”
Dr. Abramson reported that he has acted as a paid member of the scientific advisory board and as a paid consultant for Kite Pharma, which markets Yescarta, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32411.
FROM CANCER
Bispecific CAR T-cell therapy yields complete responses in relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphomas
CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.
Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.
Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.
Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.
“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.
The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.
In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.
A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.
There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.
Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.
To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.
Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.
Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.
This article was updated on 7/8/2019
CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.
Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.
Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.
Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.
“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.
The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.
In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.
A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.
There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.
Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.
To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.
Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.
Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.
This article was updated on 7/8/2019
CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.
Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.
Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.
Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.
“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.
The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.
In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.
A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.
There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.
Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.
To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.
Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.
Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.
This article was updated on 7/8/2019
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019