Breast Cancer

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In an update of the PREDIX-HER2 trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remained equivalent to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus dual-targeted HER2 therapy in producing pathologic complete remissions (pCRs) among patients with HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer.

The new data also suggest tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and dramatic improvements in PET-CT scans can predict favorable outcomes in both treatment groups. Though these findings will be useful for research purposes, they likely won’t influence routine clinical practice.

Thomas Hatschek, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, presented the updated results from PREDIX-HER2 during the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

PREDIX-HER2 included patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or lymph node metastases.

Patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) with docetaxel and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (DTP) or T-DM1 every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses. The protocol permitted switching to the competing treatment for progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity.

Postoperatively, all patients received triweekly epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide – four courses for the T-DM1 arm and two courses for the DTP arm. All patients then received triweekly adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses. The 62% of patients whose tumors were hormone receptor (HR)–positive received standard endocrine therapy postoperatively.
 

Updated results, predictors of pCR

At the 2019 ASCO annual meeting, PREDIX-HER2 investigators reported that, when compared with DTP, T-DM1 produced the same likelihood of pCR with less toxicity (ASCO 2019, Abstract 501). Updated data presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020 showed similar results.

The pCR rate was 45.5% in the DTP arm and 43.9% in the T-DM1 arm (P = .824). pCR rates were higher for HR-negative tumors – 63.6% in the DTP arm and 59% in the T-DM1 arm – than for HR-positive tumors – 36.4% in the DTP arm and 33.9% in the TDM-1 arm.

Three patients had disease progression with T-DM1, and none progressed with DTP. However, almost twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1, compared with the other sequence.

Dr. Hatschek reported that the presence of at least 10% TILs predicted pCR in both treatment groups. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 52.2% had at least 10% TILs in baseline biopsies, and 30.4% had less than 10% TILs.

In addition, a decrease of FDG maximum standardized uptake value by more than 75% on protocol-required PET-CT scans was highly predictive of pCR. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 70.3% had a maximum standardized uptake value decrease of more than 75%, and 22.5% had a decrease of 75% or less.

At median follow-up of 28.5 months, event-free survival was similar between the treatment arms. Overall, there were 13 cases of progression, relapse, contralateral breast cancer, distant metastases, or death from any cause. There were five such events in the DTP arm and eight in the TDM-1 arm.

Dr. Hatschek concluded that neoadjuvant T-DM1 may be as effective as standard NAT in all clinical subgroups evaluated. Both TILs and PET-CT showed the potential to predict pCR and merit further study in the NAT setting.
 

An imperfect surrogate

By definition, a surrogate is “one appointed to act in place of another.” In the case of PREDIX-HER2 and most other NAT studies in HER2-positive breast cancer patients, pCR is a surrogate for the endpoint about which doctors and patients really care – cancer-free survival.

As such, pCR is not a perfect surrogate. Reproducibly, pCR has been highly predictive of disease-free survival and overall survival, especially in the HR-negative subset of HER2-positive patients.

However, despite improvements with dual targeting of HER2 in the TRYPHAENA trial (Eur J Cancer. 2018;89:27-35) and the use of T-DM1 for patients failing to achieve pCR in the immediately practice-changing KATHERINE trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:617-28), eventual relapse is seen in 10%-20% of patients in various clinical-pathologic subgroups.

In PREDIX-HER2, the pCR rate for node-positive patients was considerably lower with T-DM1 than with DTP (54.1% vs. 38%), noted Valentina Guarneri, MD, of the University of Padova (Italy), in her discussion of the trial at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020.

Patients with larger initial tumor size and multiple involved axillary nodes at diagnosis remain at increased risk of death because of cancer relapse.

Central nervous system relapse remains a vexing problem. Among patients with triple-positive breast cancer, relapses may occur late, despite pCR.

Patients whose tumors transform from HER2 positive to HER2 negative with NAT, seen in approximately 8% of cases in the KATHERINE trial (ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 96O), may be another poor-risk group.
 

Clinical implications

PREDIX-HER2 is an important study. At the early time point of 2.4 years (especially early since most patients were HR-positive), if pCR is achieved, event-free survival is excellent with T-DM1 or an aggressive multiagent cytotoxic combination plus dual HER2 targeting followed by anthracyclines.

It is ideal to have clinical-pathologic tests to distinguish those patients destined to achieve the surrogate endpoint of pCR from those who will not achieve it.

Despite linkage of TILs to improved outcome for triple-negative and HER2-enriched molecular subtypes (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:40-50), analysis of TILs is not standard practice in HER2-positive breast cancer in community settings. Optimal cutoffs are not well established, and TILs have not been linked to the choice of particular treatment options.

Currently, PET-CT scans are not part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for pretreatment evaluation, except in patients for whom there is clinical suspicion of distant disease.

For those reasons, the main results of PREDIX-HER2 remain research tools that will focus our attention on the clinical-pathologic correlations Dr. Hatschek highlighted, but the results should have no influence on routine clinical practice at this time.

PREDIX-HER2 was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Radiumhemmet of Karolinska Institutet, Region Stockholm, and Roche Sweden. Dr. Hatschek disclosed relationships with Roche Sweden, Pfizer Sweden, and Pierre Fabre Sweden. Dr. Guarneri disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

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.

SOURCE: Hatschek T et al. ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 97O.

In an update of the PREDIX-HER2 trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remained equivalent to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus dual-targeted HER2 therapy in producing pathologic complete remissions (pCRs) among patients with HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer.

The new data also suggest tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and dramatic improvements in PET-CT scans can predict favorable outcomes in both treatment groups. Though these findings will be useful for research purposes, they likely won’t influence routine clinical practice.

Thomas Hatschek, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, presented the updated results from PREDIX-HER2 during the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

PREDIX-HER2 included patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or lymph node metastases.

Patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) with docetaxel and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (DTP) or T-DM1 every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses. The protocol permitted switching to the competing treatment for progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity.

Postoperatively, all patients received triweekly epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide – four courses for the T-DM1 arm and two courses for the DTP arm. All patients then received triweekly adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses. The 62% of patients whose tumors were hormone receptor (HR)–positive received standard endocrine therapy postoperatively.
 

Updated results, predictors of pCR

At the 2019 ASCO annual meeting, PREDIX-HER2 investigators reported that, when compared with DTP, T-DM1 produced the same likelihood of pCR with less toxicity (ASCO 2019, Abstract 501). Updated data presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020 showed similar results.

The pCR rate was 45.5% in the DTP arm and 43.9% in the T-DM1 arm (P = .824). pCR rates were higher for HR-negative tumors – 63.6% in the DTP arm and 59% in the T-DM1 arm – than for HR-positive tumors – 36.4% in the DTP arm and 33.9% in the TDM-1 arm.

Three patients had disease progression with T-DM1, and none progressed with DTP. However, almost twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1, compared with the other sequence.

Dr. Hatschek reported that the presence of at least 10% TILs predicted pCR in both treatment groups. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 52.2% had at least 10% TILs in baseline biopsies, and 30.4% had less than 10% TILs.

In addition, a decrease of FDG maximum standardized uptake value by more than 75% on protocol-required PET-CT scans was highly predictive of pCR. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 70.3% had a maximum standardized uptake value decrease of more than 75%, and 22.5% had a decrease of 75% or less.

At median follow-up of 28.5 months, event-free survival was similar between the treatment arms. Overall, there were 13 cases of progression, relapse, contralateral breast cancer, distant metastases, or death from any cause. There were five such events in the DTP arm and eight in the TDM-1 arm.

Dr. Hatschek concluded that neoadjuvant T-DM1 may be as effective as standard NAT in all clinical subgroups evaluated. Both TILs and PET-CT showed the potential to predict pCR and merit further study in the NAT setting.
 

An imperfect surrogate

By definition, a surrogate is “one appointed to act in place of another.” In the case of PREDIX-HER2 and most other NAT studies in HER2-positive breast cancer patients, pCR is a surrogate for the endpoint about which doctors and patients really care – cancer-free survival.

As such, pCR is not a perfect surrogate. Reproducibly, pCR has been highly predictive of disease-free survival and overall survival, especially in the HR-negative subset of HER2-positive patients.

However, despite improvements with dual targeting of HER2 in the TRYPHAENA trial (Eur J Cancer. 2018;89:27-35) and the use of T-DM1 for patients failing to achieve pCR in the immediately practice-changing KATHERINE trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:617-28), eventual relapse is seen in 10%-20% of patients in various clinical-pathologic subgroups.

In PREDIX-HER2, the pCR rate for node-positive patients was considerably lower with T-DM1 than with DTP (54.1% vs. 38%), noted Valentina Guarneri, MD, of the University of Padova (Italy), in her discussion of the trial at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020.

Patients with larger initial tumor size and multiple involved axillary nodes at diagnosis remain at increased risk of death because of cancer relapse.

Central nervous system relapse remains a vexing problem. Among patients with triple-positive breast cancer, relapses may occur late, despite pCR.

Patients whose tumors transform from HER2 positive to HER2 negative with NAT, seen in approximately 8% of cases in the KATHERINE trial (ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 96O), may be another poor-risk group.
 

Clinical implications

PREDIX-HER2 is an important study. At the early time point of 2.4 years (especially early since most patients were HR-positive), if pCR is achieved, event-free survival is excellent with T-DM1 or an aggressive multiagent cytotoxic combination plus dual HER2 targeting followed by anthracyclines.

It is ideal to have clinical-pathologic tests to distinguish those patients destined to achieve the surrogate endpoint of pCR from those who will not achieve it.

Despite linkage of TILs to improved outcome for triple-negative and HER2-enriched molecular subtypes (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:40-50), analysis of TILs is not standard practice in HER2-positive breast cancer in community settings. Optimal cutoffs are not well established, and TILs have not been linked to the choice of particular treatment options.

Currently, PET-CT scans are not part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for pretreatment evaluation, except in patients for whom there is clinical suspicion of distant disease.

For those reasons, the main results of PREDIX-HER2 remain research tools that will focus our attention on the clinical-pathologic correlations Dr. Hatschek highlighted, but the results should have no influence on routine clinical practice at this time.

PREDIX-HER2 was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Radiumhemmet of Karolinska Institutet, Region Stockholm, and Roche Sweden. Dr. Hatschek disclosed relationships with Roche Sweden, Pfizer Sweden, and Pierre Fabre Sweden. Dr. Guarneri disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

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.

SOURCE: Hatschek T et al. ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 97O.

In an update of the PREDIX-HER2 trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remained equivalent to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus dual-targeted HER2 therapy in producing pathologic complete remissions (pCRs) among patients with HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer.

The new data also suggest tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and dramatic improvements in PET-CT scans can predict favorable outcomes in both treatment groups. Though these findings will be useful for research purposes, they likely won’t influence routine clinical practice.

Thomas Hatschek, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, presented the updated results from PREDIX-HER2 during the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

PREDIX-HER2 included patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or lymph node metastases.

Patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) with docetaxel and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (DTP) or T-DM1 every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses. The protocol permitted switching to the competing treatment for progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity.

Postoperatively, all patients received triweekly epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide – four courses for the T-DM1 arm and two courses for the DTP arm. All patients then received triweekly adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses. The 62% of patients whose tumors were hormone receptor (HR)–positive received standard endocrine therapy postoperatively.
 

Updated results, predictors of pCR

At the 2019 ASCO annual meeting, PREDIX-HER2 investigators reported that, when compared with DTP, T-DM1 produced the same likelihood of pCR with less toxicity (ASCO 2019, Abstract 501). Updated data presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020 showed similar results.

The pCR rate was 45.5% in the DTP arm and 43.9% in the T-DM1 arm (P = .824). pCR rates were higher for HR-negative tumors – 63.6% in the DTP arm and 59% in the T-DM1 arm – than for HR-positive tumors – 36.4% in the DTP arm and 33.9% in the TDM-1 arm.

Three patients had disease progression with T-DM1, and none progressed with DTP. However, almost twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1, compared with the other sequence.

Dr. Hatschek reported that the presence of at least 10% TILs predicted pCR in both treatment groups. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 52.2% had at least 10% TILs in baseline biopsies, and 30.4% had less than 10% TILs.

In addition, a decrease of FDG maximum standardized uptake value by more than 75% on protocol-required PET-CT scans was highly predictive of pCR. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 70.3% had a maximum standardized uptake value decrease of more than 75%, and 22.5% had a decrease of 75% or less.

At median follow-up of 28.5 months, event-free survival was similar between the treatment arms. Overall, there were 13 cases of progression, relapse, contralateral breast cancer, distant metastases, or death from any cause. There were five such events in the DTP arm and eight in the TDM-1 arm.

Dr. Hatschek concluded that neoadjuvant T-DM1 may be as effective as standard NAT in all clinical subgroups evaluated. Both TILs and PET-CT showed the potential to predict pCR and merit further study in the NAT setting.
 

An imperfect surrogate

By definition, a surrogate is “one appointed to act in place of another.” In the case of PREDIX-HER2 and most other NAT studies in HER2-positive breast cancer patients, pCR is a surrogate for the endpoint about which doctors and patients really care – cancer-free survival.

As such, pCR is not a perfect surrogate. Reproducibly, pCR has been highly predictive of disease-free survival and overall survival, especially in the HR-negative subset of HER2-positive patients.

However, despite improvements with dual targeting of HER2 in the TRYPHAENA trial (Eur J Cancer. 2018;89:27-35) and the use of T-DM1 for patients failing to achieve pCR in the immediately practice-changing KATHERINE trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:617-28), eventual relapse is seen in 10%-20% of patients in various clinical-pathologic subgroups.

In PREDIX-HER2, the pCR rate for node-positive patients was considerably lower with T-DM1 than with DTP (54.1% vs. 38%), noted Valentina Guarneri, MD, of the University of Padova (Italy), in her discussion of the trial at ESMO Breast Cancer 2020.

Patients with larger initial tumor size and multiple involved axillary nodes at diagnosis remain at increased risk of death because of cancer relapse.

Central nervous system relapse remains a vexing problem. Among patients with triple-positive breast cancer, relapses may occur late, despite pCR.

Patients whose tumors transform from HER2 positive to HER2 negative with NAT, seen in approximately 8% of cases in the KATHERINE trial (ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 96O), may be another poor-risk group.
 

Clinical implications

PREDIX-HER2 is an important study. At the early time point of 2.4 years (especially early since most patients were HR-positive), if pCR is achieved, event-free survival is excellent with T-DM1 or an aggressive multiagent cytotoxic combination plus dual HER2 targeting followed by anthracyclines.

It is ideal to have clinical-pathologic tests to distinguish those patients destined to achieve the surrogate endpoint of pCR from those who will not achieve it.

Despite linkage of TILs to improved outcome for triple-negative and HER2-enriched molecular subtypes (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:40-50), analysis of TILs is not standard practice in HER2-positive breast cancer in community settings. Optimal cutoffs are not well established, and TILs have not been linked to the choice of particular treatment options.

Currently, PET-CT scans are not part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for pretreatment evaluation, except in patients for whom there is clinical suspicion of distant disease.

For those reasons, the main results of PREDIX-HER2 remain research tools that will focus our attention on the clinical-pathologic correlations Dr. Hatschek highlighted, but the results should have no influence on routine clinical practice at this time.

PREDIX-HER2 was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Radiumhemmet of Karolinska Institutet, Region Stockholm, and Roche Sweden. Dr. Hatschek disclosed relationships with Roche Sweden, Pfizer Sweden, and Pierre Fabre Sweden. Dr. Guarneri disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

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.

SOURCE: Hatschek T et al. ESMO Breast Cancer 2020, Abstract 97O.

In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.

Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.

Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.

Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.

Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
 

Past data

An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.

The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.

She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
 

E2108 details

In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.

In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.

A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.

In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.

Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
 

Survival, progression, and HRQOL

At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).

An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.

Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).

At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).

“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.

She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.

The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.

SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.

In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.

Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.

Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.

Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.

Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
 

Past data

An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.

The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.

She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
 

E2108 details

In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.

In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.

A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.

In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.

Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
 

Survival, progression, and HRQOL

At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).

An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.

Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).

At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).

“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.

She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.

The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.

SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.

In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.

Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.

Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.

Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.

Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
 

Past data

An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.

The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.

She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
 

E2108 details

In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.

In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.

A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.

In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.

Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
 

Survival, progression, and HRQOL

At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).

An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.

Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).

At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).

“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.

She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.

The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.

SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.

The combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with lapatinib and capecitabine, among patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

PFS was extended by nearly 6 months among patients who received pyrotinib, a novel pan-HER2 inhibitor, combined with capecitabine. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in nearly 31% of patients receiving the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, though none of the patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event.

Binghe Xu, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College in Beijing, presented these results, from the phase 3 PHOEBE trial, as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

The value of pyrotinib

Although there are already many targeted therapies for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, accessibility can be an issue, with drugs such as pertuzumab and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) not available in all regions of the world, according to Dr. Xu.

“Before we initiated this clinical trial, lapatinib plus capecitabine was the only second-line standard of care against HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China,” he said.

Based, in part, on results of the PHOEBE trial, the combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine was approved in China as a second-line standard of care for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, according to Dr. Xu.

Pyrotinib has now demonstrated “clinical value” in two phase 3 clinical trials, but its value in relation to pertuzumab, T-DM1, tucatinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, or neratinib is less clear, said Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.

“Also, in my opinion, the toxicity profile needs attention,” Dr. Prat said in a discussion of the PHOEBE results that was also part of the virtual ASCO meeting.

The 31% incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was “very similar,” he said, to what was seen in PHENIX, another phase 3 trial of pyrotinib plus capecitabine that was presented at the 2019 ASCO annual meeting (J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 suppl; abstr 1001).

“What is the current therapy landscape? In my opinion, today, the first line remains taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab; the second line T-DM1; and the third line tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine, with other treatment strategies reserved for later lines,” Dr. Prat said.

Study details

PHOEBE included 267 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. They had previously received trastuzumab and taxanes, and/or anthracyclines, with up to two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients’ median age was 50 years, 79% had visceral metastases at screening, and about 26% had trastuzumab resistance, Dr. Xu said. Resistance was defined as relapse within 6 months after adjuvant treatment or progression within 3 months of treatment for metastatic disease.

A statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement was seen in PFS, the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Xu said.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, compared with 6.8 months for lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.56; P < .0001).

The PFS benefit was consistently observed across all predefined subgroups, including by trastuzumab resistance.

In trastuzumab-resistant patients, the median PFS was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib combination and 6.9 months for the lapatinib combination (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-1.21). In patients without trastuzumab resistance, the median PFS was 12.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51).

Although overall survival (OS) data were not yet mature, there was a “strong trend” toward a benefit with pyrotinib, Dr. Xu said. The 12-month OS rate was 91.3% for the pyrotinib combination and 77.4% for lapatinib. The median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of analysis.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater occurred in 57.5% of the pyrotinib arm and 34.1% of the lapatinib arm.

Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse event, occurring in 30.6% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 8.3% of those in the lapatinib arm. No grade 4 or 5 diarrhea was seen.

Overall, diarrhea occurred in 94.8% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 62.1% of those in the lapatinib arm. However, pyrotinib-associated diarrhea was generally of low severity, occurred early, had a short duration, was reversible, and did not lead to treatment termination, according to Dr. Xu.

This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Xu reported additional disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Prat disclosed relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and other companies.

SOURCE: Xu B et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1003

The combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with lapatinib and capecitabine, among patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

PFS was extended by nearly 6 months among patients who received pyrotinib, a novel pan-HER2 inhibitor, combined with capecitabine. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in nearly 31% of patients receiving the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, though none of the patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event.

Binghe Xu, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College in Beijing, presented these results, from the phase 3 PHOEBE trial, as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

The value of pyrotinib

Although there are already many targeted therapies for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, accessibility can be an issue, with drugs such as pertuzumab and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) not available in all regions of the world, according to Dr. Xu.

“Before we initiated this clinical trial, lapatinib plus capecitabine was the only second-line standard of care against HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China,” he said.

Based, in part, on results of the PHOEBE trial, the combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine was approved in China as a second-line standard of care for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, according to Dr. Xu.

Pyrotinib has now demonstrated “clinical value” in two phase 3 clinical trials, but its value in relation to pertuzumab, T-DM1, tucatinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, or neratinib is less clear, said Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.

“Also, in my opinion, the toxicity profile needs attention,” Dr. Prat said in a discussion of the PHOEBE results that was also part of the virtual ASCO meeting.

The 31% incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was “very similar,” he said, to what was seen in PHENIX, another phase 3 trial of pyrotinib plus capecitabine that was presented at the 2019 ASCO annual meeting (J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 suppl; abstr 1001).

“What is the current therapy landscape? In my opinion, today, the first line remains taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab; the second line T-DM1; and the third line tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine, with other treatment strategies reserved for later lines,” Dr. Prat said.

Study details

PHOEBE included 267 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. They had previously received trastuzumab and taxanes, and/or anthracyclines, with up to two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients’ median age was 50 years, 79% had visceral metastases at screening, and about 26% had trastuzumab resistance, Dr. Xu said. Resistance was defined as relapse within 6 months after adjuvant treatment or progression within 3 months of treatment for metastatic disease.

A statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement was seen in PFS, the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Xu said.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, compared with 6.8 months for lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.56; P < .0001).

The PFS benefit was consistently observed across all predefined subgroups, including by trastuzumab resistance.

In trastuzumab-resistant patients, the median PFS was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib combination and 6.9 months for the lapatinib combination (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-1.21). In patients without trastuzumab resistance, the median PFS was 12.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51).

Although overall survival (OS) data were not yet mature, there was a “strong trend” toward a benefit with pyrotinib, Dr. Xu said. The 12-month OS rate was 91.3% for the pyrotinib combination and 77.4% for lapatinib. The median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of analysis.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater occurred in 57.5% of the pyrotinib arm and 34.1% of the lapatinib arm.

Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse event, occurring in 30.6% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 8.3% of those in the lapatinib arm. No grade 4 or 5 diarrhea was seen.

Overall, diarrhea occurred in 94.8% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 62.1% of those in the lapatinib arm. However, pyrotinib-associated diarrhea was generally of low severity, occurred early, had a short duration, was reversible, and did not lead to treatment termination, according to Dr. Xu.

This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Xu reported additional disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Prat disclosed relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and other companies.

SOURCE: Xu B et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1003

The combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with lapatinib and capecitabine, among patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

PFS was extended by nearly 6 months among patients who received pyrotinib, a novel pan-HER2 inhibitor, combined with capecitabine. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in nearly 31% of patients receiving the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, though none of the patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event.

Binghe Xu, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College in Beijing, presented these results, from the phase 3 PHOEBE trial, as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

The value of pyrotinib

Although there are already many targeted therapies for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, accessibility can be an issue, with drugs such as pertuzumab and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) not available in all regions of the world, according to Dr. Xu.

“Before we initiated this clinical trial, lapatinib plus capecitabine was the only second-line standard of care against HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China,” he said.

Based, in part, on results of the PHOEBE trial, the combination of pyrotinib and capecitabine was approved in China as a second-line standard of care for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, according to Dr. Xu.

Pyrotinib has now demonstrated “clinical value” in two phase 3 clinical trials, but its value in relation to pertuzumab, T-DM1, tucatinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, or neratinib is less clear, said Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.

“Also, in my opinion, the toxicity profile needs attention,” Dr. Prat said in a discussion of the PHOEBE results that was also part of the virtual ASCO meeting.

The 31% incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was “very similar,” he said, to what was seen in PHENIX, another phase 3 trial of pyrotinib plus capecitabine that was presented at the 2019 ASCO annual meeting (J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 suppl; abstr 1001).

“What is the current therapy landscape? In my opinion, today, the first line remains taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab; the second line T-DM1; and the third line tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine, with other treatment strategies reserved for later lines,” Dr. Prat said.

Study details

PHOEBE included 267 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. They had previously received trastuzumab and taxanes, and/or anthracyclines, with up to two prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The patients’ median age was 50 years, 79% had visceral metastases at screening, and about 26% had trastuzumab resistance, Dr. Xu said. Resistance was defined as relapse within 6 months after adjuvant treatment or progression within 3 months of treatment for metastatic disease.

A statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement was seen in PFS, the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Xu said.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib-capecitabine combination, compared with 6.8 months for lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.56; P < .0001).

The PFS benefit was consistently observed across all predefined subgroups, including by trastuzumab resistance.

In trastuzumab-resistant patients, the median PFS was 12.5 months for the pyrotinib combination and 6.9 months for the lapatinib combination (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-1.21). In patients without trastuzumab resistance, the median PFS was 12.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51).

Although overall survival (OS) data were not yet mature, there was a “strong trend” toward a benefit with pyrotinib, Dr. Xu said. The 12-month OS rate was 91.3% for the pyrotinib combination and 77.4% for lapatinib. The median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of analysis.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater occurred in 57.5% of the pyrotinib arm and 34.1% of the lapatinib arm.

Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse event, occurring in 30.6% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 8.3% of those in the lapatinib arm. No grade 4 or 5 diarrhea was seen.

Overall, diarrhea occurred in 94.8% of patients in the pyrotinib arm and 62.1% of those in the lapatinib arm. However, pyrotinib-associated diarrhea was generally of low severity, occurred early, had a short duration, was reversible, and did not lead to treatment termination, according to Dr. Xu.

This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Xu reported additional disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Prat disclosed relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and other companies.

SOURCE: Xu B et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1003

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.