Breast Cancer

Potential advantages of a neoadjuvant systemic therapy approach including downstaging of the primary breast tumor and axilla, as well the ability to assess tumor response which can have prognostic and adjuvant therapy implications. Samiei and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies (57,531 patients) in the neoadjuvant setting to assess axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rates among clinically node-positive breast cancer of various subtypes. HR-negative/HER2-positive subtype was associated with the highest pCR rate (60%) followed by 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR+/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR+/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A. Achievement of axillary pCR after pre-operative chemotherapy has been associated with improvement in relapse-free survival and overall survival. Furthermore, this data stimulates consideration of less invasive axillary staging in certain patients pending chemotherapy response, and the contribution of breast cancer subtype and impact on outcomes deserves further investigation.

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) during breast cancer treatment can affect an individual’s perception of their own appearance, body image, overall health and therefore may impact quality of life. Wang et al performed a meta-analysis including 27 studies with 2,202 participants and demonstrated a 61% effectiveness rate of scalp cooling to protect hair loss. The effectiveness rates of scalp cooling when taxanes and anthracyclines were used alone were higher compared to combination therapy (74% for taxanes, 66% for anthracyclines, and 54% for combination). A prospective study including 139 patients treated with anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer receiving scalp cooling found a 43% success rate (hair loss £50%). It is important to consider chemotherapy regimen, side effects (headache, dizziness, pain, nausea), resources and cost when counseling patients regarding scalp cooling. Future studies exploring ways to address these potential challenges will be beneficial to improve patient access and tolerance to scalp cooling.

Obesity is associated with increased risk of various types of cancers, and can have a detrimental effect on cancer prognosis as well as treatment response and tolerance. Potential mechanisms to explain the relationship between obesity, physical activity and breast cancer prognosis include increased levels of sex and metabolic hormones, alteration in adipokine levels, and increased inflammation, oxidative stress and angiogenesis. A retrospective cohort study including 6,481 patients with an initial non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, majority of whom were overweight (33.4%) or obese (33.8%), observed increasing BMI (for every 5 kg/m² BMI increase) was associated with an increased risk of second cancer development (7%, RR=1.07; p=0.01), obesity-related cancer (13%, RR=1.13; p<0.001), second breast cancer (11%, RR=1.11; p0.01) and second ER-positive breast cancer (15%, RR1.15; p0.008). There are several ongoing clinical trials that are examining the impact of diet and weight loss interventions on breast cancer outcomes (DIANA-5, B-AHEAD3, Breast Cancer Weight Loss Study). These studies will be key to counseling and empowering patients to address potentially modifiable variables that can positively impact their health.

References:

Kalinsky K, Diamond JR, Vahdat LT, Tolaney SM, Juric D, O’Shaughnessy J, Moroose RL, Mayer IA, Abramson VG, Goldengerg DM, Sharkey RM, Maliakel P, Hong Q, Goswami T, Wegener WA, Bardia A. Sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated hormone receptor-positive/ HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: final results from a phase I/II, single-arm, basket trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1709-1718.

Mougalian SS, Hernandez M, Lei X, Lynch S, Kuerer HM, Symmans WF, Theriault RL, Fornage BD, Hsu L, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, Hunt KK, Yang WT, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V. Ten-year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologically confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:508-516.

Munzone M, Bagnardi V, Campennì G, Mazzocco K, Pagan E, Tramacere A, Masiero M, Iorfida M, Mazza M, Montagna E, Cancello G, Bianco N, Palazzo A, Cardillo A, Dellapasqua S, Sangalli C, Pettini G, Pravettoni G, Colleoni M, Veronesi P. Preventing chemotherapy-induced alopecia: a prospective clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of a scalp-cooling system in early breast cancer patients treated with anthracyclines. Br J Cancer. 2019;121:325–331.

McTiernan A. Weight, physical activity and breast cancer survival. Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77:403–411.

Potential advantages of a neoadjuvant systemic therapy approach including downstaging of the primary breast tumor and axilla, as well the ability to assess tumor response which can have prognostic and adjuvant therapy implications. Samiei and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies (57,531 patients) in the neoadjuvant setting to assess axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rates among clinically node-positive breast cancer of various subtypes. HR-negative/HER2-positive subtype was associated with the highest pCR rate (60%) followed by 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR+/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR+/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A. Achievement of axillary pCR after pre-operative chemotherapy has been associated with improvement in relapse-free survival and overall survival. Furthermore, this data stimulates consideration of less invasive axillary staging in certain patients pending chemotherapy response, and the contribution of breast cancer subtype and impact on outcomes deserves further investigation.

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) during breast cancer treatment can affect an individual’s perception of their own appearance, body image, overall health and therefore may impact quality of life. Wang et al performed a meta-analysis including 27 studies with 2,202 participants and demonstrated a 61% effectiveness rate of scalp cooling to protect hair loss. The effectiveness rates of scalp cooling when taxanes and anthracyclines were used alone were higher compared to combination therapy (74% for taxanes, 66% for anthracyclines, and 54% for combination). A prospective study including 139 patients treated with anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer receiving scalp cooling found a 43% success rate (hair loss £50%). It is important to consider chemotherapy regimen, side effects (headache, dizziness, pain, nausea), resources and cost when counseling patients regarding scalp cooling. Future studies exploring ways to address these potential challenges will be beneficial to improve patient access and tolerance to scalp cooling.

Obesity is associated with increased risk of various types of cancers, and can have a detrimental effect on cancer prognosis as well as treatment response and tolerance. Potential mechanisms to explain the relationship between obesity, physical activity and breast cancer prognosis include increased levels of sex and metabolic hormones, alteration in adipokine levels, and increased inflammation, oxidative stress and angiogenesis. A retrospective cohort study including 6,481 patients with an initial non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, majority of whom were overweight (33.4%) or obese (33.8%), observed increasing BMI (for every 5 kg/m² BMI increase) was associated with an increased risk of second cancer development (7%, RR=1.07; p=0.01), obesity-related cancer (13%, RR=1.13; p<0.001), second breast cancer (11%, RR=1.11; p0.01) and second ER-positive breast cancer (15%, RR1.15; p0.008). There are several ongoing clinical trials that are examining the impact of diet and weight loss interventions on breast cancer outcomes (DIANA-5, B-AHEAD3, Breast Cancer Weight Loss Study). These studies will be key to counseling and empowering patients to address potentially modifiable variables that can positively impact their health.

References:

Kalinsky K, Diamond JR, Vahdat LT, Tolaney SM, Juric D, O’Shaughnessy J, Moroose RL, Mayer IA, Abramson VG, Goldengerg DM, Sharkey RM, Maliakel P, Hong Q, Goswami T, Wegener WA, Bardia A. Sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated hormone receptor-positive/ HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: final results from a phase I/II, single-arm, basket trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1709-1718.

Mougalian SS, Hernandez M, Lei X, Lynch S, Kuerer HM, Symmans WF, Theriault RL, Fornage BD, Hsu L, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, Hunt KK, Yang WT, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V. Ten-year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologically confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:508-516.

Munzone M, Bagnardi V, Campennì G, Mazzocco K, Pagan E, Tramacere A, Masiero M, Iorfida M, Mazza M, Montagna E, Cancello G, Bianco N, Palazzo A, Cardillo A, Dellapasqua S, Sangalli C, Pettini G, Pravettoni G, Colleoni M, Veronesi P. Preventing chemotherapy-induced alopecia: a prospective clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of a scalp-cooling system in early breast cancer patients treated with anthracyclines. Br J Cancer. 2019;121:325–331.

McTiernan A. Weight, physical activity and breast cancer survival. Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77:403–411.

Potential advantages of a neoadjuvant systemic therapy approach including downstaging of the primary breast tumor and axilla, as well the ability to assess tumor response which can have prognostic and adjuvant therapy implications. Samiei and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies (57,531 patients) in the neoadjuvant setting to assess axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rates among clinically node-positive breast cancer of various subtypes. HR-negative/HER2-positive subtype was associated with the highest pCR rate (60%) followed by 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR+/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR+/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A. Achievement of axillary pCR after pre-operative chemotherapy has been associated with improvement in relapse-free survival and overall survival. Furthermore, this data stimulates consideration of less invasive axillary staging in certain patients pending chemotherapy response, and the contribution of breast cancer subtype and impact on outcomes deserves further investigation.

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) during breast cancer treatment can affect an individual’s perception of their own appearance, body image, overall health and therefore may impact quality of life. Wang et al performed a meta-analysis including 27 studies with 2,202 participants and demonstrated a 61% effectiveness rate of scalp cooling to protect hair loss. The effectiveness rates of scalp cooling when taxanes and anthracyclines were used alone were higher compared to combination therapy (74% for taxanes, 66% for anthracyclines, and 54% for combination). A prospective study including 139 patients treated with anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer receiving scalp cooling found a 43% success rate (hair loss £50%). It is important to consider chemotherapy regimen, side effects (headache, dizziness, pain, nausea), resources and cost when counseling patients regarding scalp cooling. Future studies exploring ways to address these potential challenges will be beneficial to improve patient access and tolerance to scalp cooling.

Obesity is associated with increased risk of various types of cancers, and can have a detrimental effect on cancer prognosis as well as treatment response and tolerance. Potential mechanisms to explain the relationship between obesity, physical activity and breast cancer prognosis include increased levels of sex and metabolic hormones, alteration in adipokine levels, and increased inflammation, oxidative stress and angiogenesis. A retrospective cohort study including 6,481 patients with an initial non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, majority of whom were overweight (33.4%) or obese (33.8%), observed increasing BMI (for every 5 kg/m² BMI increase) was associated with an increased risk of second cancer development (7%, RR=1.07; p=0.01), obesity-related cancer (13%, RR=1.13; p<0.001), second breast cancer (11%, RR=1.11; p0.01) and second ER-positive breast cancer (15%, RR1.15; p0.008). There are several ongoing clinical trials that are examining the impact of diet and weight loss interventions on breast cancer outcomes (DIANA-5, B-AHEAD3, Breast Cancer Weight Loss Study). These studies will be key to counseling and empowering patients to address potentially modifiable variables that can positively impact their health.

References:

Kalinsky K, Diamond JR, Vahdat LT, Tolaney SM, Juric D, O’Shaughnessy J, Moroose RL, Mayer IA, Abramson VG, Goldengerg DM, Sharkey RM, Maliakel P, Hong Q, Goswami T, Wegener WA, Bardia A. Sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated hormone receptor-positive/ HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: final results from a phase I/II, single-arm, basket trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1709-1718.

Mougalian SS, Hernandez M, Lei X, Lynch S, Kuerer HM, Symmans WF, Theriault RL, Fornage BD, Hsu L, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, Hunt KK, Yang WT, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V. Ten-year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologically confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:508-516.

Munzone M, Bagnardi V, Campennì G, Mazzocco K, Pagan E, Tramacere A, Masiero M, Iorfida M, Mazza M, Montagna E, Cancello G, Bianco N, Palazzo A, Cardillo A, Dellapasqua S, Sangalli C, Pettini G, Pravettoni G, Colleoni M, Veronesi P. Preventing chemotherapy-induced alopecia: a prospective clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of a scalp-cooling system in early breast cancer patients treated with anthracyclines. Br J Cancer. 2019;121:325–331.

McTiernan A. Weight, physical activity and breast cancer survival. Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77:403–411.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Sharing their personal experiences on social media can emphasize oncologists’ humanity and have substantive, beneficial effects on patient care, according to a presentation at the Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO) inaugural meeting.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.

Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.

Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.

In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).

Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.

Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”

Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
 

Dispelling myths and creating community via social media

A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.

Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.

Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.

With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.

His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.

Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
 

Social media for professional development and patient care

The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).

First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.

Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).

Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.

Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
 

Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise

The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.

As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).

At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:

• The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
• The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
• The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
• A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.

An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.

In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.

Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.

Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.

Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.

Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.

Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.

Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.

Key clinical point: The hormone receptor (HR)-negative/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive subtype was associated with the highest axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and luminal A subtype was associated with the lowest axillary pCR rate.

Major finding: The axillary pCR rates were 60% for HR-negative/HER2-positive, 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR-positive/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR-positive/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A breast cancer subtypes.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 33 studies including 57,531 patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society and Alpe d’Huzes Foundation. The authors received grants and personal fees outside this work.

Source: Samiei S et al. JAMA Surg. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0891.

Key clinical point: The hormone receptor (HR)-negative/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive subtype was associated with the highest axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and luminal A subtype was associated with the lowest axillary pCR rate.

Major finding: The axillary pCR rates were 60% for HR-negative/HER2-positive, 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR-positive/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR-positive/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A breast cancer subtypes.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 33 studies including 57,531 patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society and Alpe d’Huzes Foundation. The authors received grants and personal fees outside this work.

Source: Samiei S et al. JAMA Surg. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0891.

Key clinical point: The hormone receptor (HR)-negative/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive subtype was associated with the highest axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and luminal A subtype was associated with the lowest axillary pCR rate.

Major finding: The axillary pCR rates were 60% for HR-negative/HER2-positive, 59% for HER2-positive, 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR-positive/HER2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR-positive/HER2-negative, and 13% for luminal A breast cancer subtypes.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 33 studies including 57,531 patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society and Alpe d’Huzes Foundation. The authors received grants and personal fees outside this work.

Source: Samiei S et al. JAMA Surg. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0891.

Key clinical point: Scalp cooling therapy for chemotherapy-induced alopecia in patients with breast cancer is associated with 61% effectiveness, according to a meta-analysis.

Major finding: Scalp cooling therapy showed an effectiveness of 61% against hair loss. The region-specific efficacy was 65% in Europe and 53% in Asia.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 27 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 12 cross-sectional, and 12 cohort studies) with 2,202 participants.

Disclosures: The study funding source was not identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wang S et al. Support Care Cancer. 2021 Apr 13. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06188-8.

Key clinical point: Scalp cooling therapy for chemotherapy-induced alopecia in patients with breast cancer is associated with 61% effectiveness, according to a meta-analysis.

Major finding: Scalp cooling therapy showed an effectiveness of 61% against hair loss. The region-specific efficacy was 65% in Europe and 53% in Asia.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 27 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 12 cross-sectional, and 12 cohort studies) with 2,202 participants.

Disclosures: The study funding source was not identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wang S et al. Support Care Cancer. 2021 Apr 13. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06188-8.

Key clinical point: Scalp cooling therapy for chemotherapy-induced alopecia in patients with breast cancer is associated with 61% effectiveness, according to a meta-analysis.

Major finding: Scalp cooling therapy showed an effectiveness of 61% against hair loss. The region-specific efficacy was 65% in Europe and 53% in Asia.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 27 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 12 cross-sectional, and 12 cohort studies) with 2,202 participants.

Disclosures: The study funding source was not identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wang S et al. Support Care Cancer. 2021 Apr 13. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06188-8.

Key clinical point: Increasing body mass index (BMI) among survivors of early breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary cancer.

Major finding: At a mean follow-up of 88.0 months, 12.7% of patients developed a second primary cancer. For every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI, the risk for any second cancer diagnosis increased by 7% and for obesity-related cancers by 13%. The risk for a second breast cancer and second estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer increased by 11% and 15%, respectively, for every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI.

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 6,481 women with early-stage primary breast cancer, wherein 33.4% of patients were overweight, and 33.8% were obese.

Disclosures: This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the US National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no conflict of interests.

Source: Feigelson HS et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Apr 5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab053.

Key clinical point: Increasing body mass index (BMI) among survivors of early breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary cancer.

Major finding: At a mean follow-up of 88.0 months, 12.7% of patients developed a second primary cancer. For every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI, the risk for any second cancer diagnosis increased by 7% and for obesity-related cancers by 13%. The risk for a second breast cancer and second estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer increased by 11% and 15%, respectively, for every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI.

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 6,481 women with early-stage primary breast cancer, wherein 33.4% of patients were overweight, and 33.8% were obese.

Disclosures: This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the US National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no conflict of interests.

Source: Feigelson HS et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Apr 5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab053.

Key clinical point: Increasing body mass index (BMI) among survivors of early breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary cancer.

Major finding: At a mean follow-up of 88.0 months, 12.7% of patients developed a second primary cancer. For every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI, the risk for any second cancer diagnosis increased by 7% and for obesity-related cancers by 13%. The risk for a second breast cancer and second estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer increased by 11% and 15%, respectively, for every 5 kg/m² increase in the BMI.

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 6,481 women with early-stage primary breast cancer, wherein 33.4% of patients were overweight, and 33.8% were obese.

Disclosures: This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the US National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no conflict of interests.

Source: Feigelson HS et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Apr 5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab053.

Key clinical point: High rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy (RT) do not show benefit in older women with early estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer.

Major finding: Among all patients, 65.3% received SLNB and 54.4% received adjuvant RT. No association was found between SLNB and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS; P = .71) or disease-free survival (DFS; P = .11). RT showed no association with LRFS (P = .10) or DFS (P = .97).

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 3,361 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older with early ER+ breast cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UPMC Health Services Division and Shear Family Foundation. The authors declared receiving consulting fees, personal fees and/or research funding outside this work.

Source: Carleton N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6322.

Key clinical point: High rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy (RT) do not show benefit in older women with early estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer.

Major finding: Among all patients, 65.3% received SLNB and 54.4% received adjuvant RT. No association was found between SLNB and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS; P = .71) or disease-free survival (DFS; P = .11). RT showed no association with LRFS (P = .10) or DFS (P = .97).

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 3,361 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older with early ER+ breast cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UPMC Health Services Division and Shear Family Foundation. The authors declared receiving consulting fees, personal fees and/or research funding outside this work.

Source: Carleton N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6322.

Key clinical point: High rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy (RT) do not show benefit in older women with early estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer.

Major finding: Among all patients, 65.3% received SLNB and 54.4% received adjuvant RT. No association was found between SLNB and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS; P = .71) or disease-free survival (DFS; P = .11). RT showed no association with LRFS (P = .10) or DFS (P = .97).

Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 3,361 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older with early ER+ breast cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UPMC Health Services Division and Shear Family Foundation. The authors declared receiving consulting fees, personal fees and/or research funding outside this work.

Source: Carleton N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6322.

Key clinical point: The addition of oral alisertib to a reduced dose of weekly paclitaxel improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS was 10.2 months with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. 7.1 months with paclitaxel alone (hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .005) in the patients with ER+, HER2-negative disease. Grade 3-4 adverse event rate was higher with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. paclitaxel alone (84.8% vs. 48.6%).

Study details: A phase 2, open-label, randomized study of 139 patients with metastatic breast cancer who received either paclitaxel or paclitaxel plus alisertib.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a research grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. O’Shaughnessy and Dr. Andorsky declared receiving personal fees, consulting and/or serving on steering committee meetings for various sources.

Source: O'Shaughnessy J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4103.

Key clinical point: The addition of oral alisertib to a reduced dose of weekly paclitaxel improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS was 10.2 months with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. 7.1 months with paclitaxel alone (hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .005) in the patients with ER+, HER2-negative disease. Grade 3-4 adverse event rate was higher with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. paclitaxel alone (84.8% vs. 48.6%).

Study details: A phase 2, open-label, randomized study of 139 patients with metastatic breast cancer who received either paclitaxel or paclitaxel plus alisertib.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a research grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. O’Shaughnessy and Dr. Andorsky declared receiving personal fees, consulting and/or serving on steering committee meetings for various sources.

Source: O'Shaughnessy J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4103.

Key clinical point: The addition of oral alisertib to a reduced dose of weekly paclitaxel improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS was 10.2 months with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. 7.1 months with paclitaxel alone (hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .005) in the patients with ER+, HER2-negative disease. Grade 3-4 adverse event rate was higher with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs. paclitaxel alone (84.8% vs. 48.6%).

Study details: A phase 2, open-label, randomized study of 139 patients with metastatic breast cancer who received either paclitaxel or paclitaxel plus alisertib.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a research grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. O’Shaughnessy and Dr. Andorsky declared receiving personal fees, consulting and/or serving on steering committee meetings for various sources.

Source: O'Shaughnessy J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4103.