Breast Cancer

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

A novel combination has boosted responses in women with high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The new combo comprises the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

When this combo was added to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, it yielded a significantly higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate at the time of surgery than was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The superior pCR rate was seen across all HER2-negative breast cancer subtypes, including HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–positive tumors (Mammaprint high risk), and in women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), reported lead investigator Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, from Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

“These results provide further evidence for the clinical value of immunotherapy in early-stage breast cancer and suggest new avenues for how to exploit these drugs in hormone receptor [HR]–positive breast cancers,” said Pusztai.

He presented the results at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting, which took place online, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxicities, including financial

“The benefits from immunotherapy are clearly emerging in early and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, likely with PD-L1 expression. However, there’s much more uncertainty in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors whether there is benefit and who will benefit from immunotherapy,” commented Pamela N. Munster, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was the invited discussant.

“The signal of a better pCR rate among patients in the ultra-high Mammaprint group may allow selection of patients with HR-positive disease who may benefit from immunotherapeutic agents and/or PARP inhibitors,” she said.

Munster noted that the approximately 10% higher rate of immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater that was seen with the combination appears similar to that seen in other studies, but anemia and fatigue appeared to be less frequent with durvalumab/olaparaib and paclitaxel in comparison with paclitaxel alone.

“In the absence of a clear delineation of the contribution of olaparib, some weight should be given to the financial burden of adding both durvalumab and olaparib to a preoperative regimen,” she said.

The additional cost of durvalumab is approximately $34,000, and adding olaparib boosts that by about $22,000 more, Munster said.
 

Ongoing platform trial

The new results come from one arm of the ongoing Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response Through Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2 (I-SPY-2) trial. This is an ongoing platform trial that is exploring the use of new drugs in combination with a standard neoadjuvant therapy backbone for the treatment of high-risk cancers.

In this trial, women with stage II or III breast cancer with tumors 2.5 cm or larger are assessed for one of eight biomarker subtypes according to HER2 status, HR status, and genetic risk factors, as determined on the basis of a 70-gene assay. The patients within each biomarker subtype are randomly assigned to receive standard therapy either with or without an investigational agent.

For each subtrial, a primary endpoint is an improvement in pCR in comparison with the standard of care.

Changes in tumor volume on MRI are used to predict whether patients will achieve a pCR. Those who are considered to have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success are eligible for moving on to phase 3 trials.

The I-SPY-2 trial was described in detail by principal investigator Laura J. Esserman, MD, MBA, from the Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, in a 2017 interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

As previously reported, the first drugs to “graduate” from the trial were the HER2/HER4 inhibitor neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma Biotechnology) and the investigational PARP inhibitor veliparib (AbbVie).
 

Study details

The I-SPY-2 results that Pusztai reported at the AACR meeting were based on an analysis of 73 HER2-negative patients, including 21 patients with TNBC and 52 with HR-positive tumors with Mammaprint high-risk features. These patients underwent treatment with durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for three cycles, olaparib 100 mg twice daily for weeks 1 through 11, and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks, followed by AC chemotherapy (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) for four cycles.

The 299 patients in the control arm received paclitaxel and chemotherapy only.

In all three biomarker subsets studied, durvalumab and olaparib increased pCR rates compared with controls, as shown in the table.

The probability that the combination was superior to control in each subgroup approached 100%, Pusztai noted.

Adverse events with the combination were consistent with known side effects of the drugs, he commented. Immune-related grade 3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 1.6% in the control arm.

Higher pCR rates were seen in the subset of immune-rich tumors among all cancer subtypes and in both study arms.

“Exploratory analysis suggests several potential predictive markers of durvalumab/olaparib benefit over chemotherapy alone,” Pusztai reported.

These markers included Mammaprint MP2 (ultra high) versus MP1 in HR+/HER2– tumors, and low CD3/CD8 gene signature ratio, high macrophage/Tc-class 2 gene signature ratio, and high proliferation signature, all of which were associated with higher pCR rates in the experimental arm among patients with TNBC.

The trial was supported by the William K. Bowes Jr Foundation, Foundation for the NIH, Give Breast Cancer the Boot, UCSF, the Biomarkers Consortium, IQVIA, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Safeway, California Breast Cancer Research Program, Breast Cancer Research–Atwater Trust, and Stand Up to Cancer. Pusztai has received honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and other companies. Munster has received research and travel support from and has served on the scientific advisory boards of AstraZeneca and other companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel combination has boosted responses in women with high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The new combo comprises the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

When this combo was added to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, it yielded a significantly higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate at the time of surgery than was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The superior pCR rate was seen across all HER2-negative breast cancer subtypes, including HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–positive tumors (Mammaprint high risk), and in women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), reported lead investigator Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, from Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

“These results provide further evidence for the clinical value of immunotherapy in early-stage breast cancer and suggest new avenues for how to exploit these drugs in hormone receptor [HR]–positive breast cancers,” said Pusztai.

He presented the results at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting, which took place online, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxicities, including financial

“The benefits from immunotherapy are clearly emerging in early and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, likely with PD-L1 expression. However, there’s much more uncertainty in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors whether there is benefit and who will benefit from immunotherapy,” commented Pamela N. Munster, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was the invited discussant.

“The signal of a better pCR rate among patients in the ultra-high Mammaprint group may allow selection of patients with HR-positive disease who may benefit from immunotherapeutic agents and/or PARP inhibitors,” she said.

Munster noted that the approximately 10% higher rate of immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater that was seen with the combination appears similar to that seen in other studies, but anemia and fatigue appeared to be less frequent with durvalumab/olaparaib and paclitaxel in comparison with paclitaxel alone.

“In the absence of a clear delineation of the contribution of olaparib, some weight should be given to the financial burden of adding both durvalumab and olaparib to a preoperative regimen,” she said.

The additional cost of durvalumab is approximately $34,000, and adding olaparib boosts that by about $22,000 more, Munster said.
 

Ongoing platform trial

The new results come from one arm of the ongoing Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response Through Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2 (I-SPY-2) trial. This is an ongoing platform trial that is exploring the use of new drugs in combination with a standard neoadjuvant therapy backbone for the treatment of high-risk cancers.

In this trial, women with stage II or III breast cancer with tumors 2.5 cm or larger are assessed for one of eight biomarker subtypes according to HER2 status, HR status, and genetic risk factors, as determined on the basis of a 70-gene assay. The patients within each biomarker subtype are randomly assigned to receive standard therapy either with or without an investigational agent.

For each subtrial, a primary endpoint is an improvement in pCR in comparison with the standard of care.

Changes in tumor volume on MRI are used to predict whether patients will achieve a pCR. Those who are considered to have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success are eligible for moving on to phase 3 trials.

The I-SPY-2 trial was described in detail by principal investigator Laura J. Esserman, MD, MBA, from the Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, in a 2017 interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

As previously reported, the first drugs to “graduate” from the trial were the HER2/HER4 inhibitor neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma Biotechnology) and the investigational PARP inhibitor veliparib (AbbVie).
 

Study details

The I-SPY-2 results that Pusztai reported at the AACR meeting were based on an analysis of 73 HER2-negative patients, including 21 patients with TNBC and 52 with HR-positive tumors with Mammaprint high-risk features. These patients underwent treatment with durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for three cycles, olaparib 100 mg twice daily for weeks 1 through 11, and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks, followed by AC chemotherapy (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) for four cycles.

The 299 patients in the control arm received paclitaxel and chemotherapy only.

In all three biomarker subsets studied, durvalumab and olaparib increased pCR rates compared with controls, as shown in the table.

The probability that the combination was superior to control in each subgroup approached 100%, Pusztai noted.

Adverse events with the combination were consistent with known side effects of the drugs, he commented. Immune-related grade 3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 1.6% in the control arm.

Higher pCR rates were seen in the subset of immune-rich tumors among all cancer subtypes and in both study arms.

“Exploratory analysis suggests several potential predictive markers of durvalumab/olaparib benefit over chemotherapy alone,” Pusztai reported.

These markers included Mammaprint MP2 (ultra high) versus MP1 in HR+/HER2– tumors, and low CD3/CD8 gene signature ratio, high macrophage/Tc-class 2 gene signature ratio, and high proliferation signature, all of which were associated with higher pCR rates in the experimental arm among patients with TNBC.

The trial was supported by the William K. Bowes Jr Foundation, Foundation for the NIH, Give Breast Cancer the Boot, UCSF, the Biomarkers Consortium, IQVIA, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Safeway, California Breast Cancer Research Program, Breast Cancer Research–Atwater Trust, and Stand Up to Cancer. Pusztai has received honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and other companies. Munster has received research and travel support from and has served on the scientific advisory boards of AstraZeneca and other companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel combination has boosted responses in women with high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The new combo comprises the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

When this combo was added to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, it yielded a significantly higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate at the time of surgery than was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The superior pCR rate was seen across all HER2-negative breast cancer subtypes, including HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–positive tumors (Mammaprint high risk), and in women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), reported lead investigator Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, from Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

“These results provide further evidence for the clinical value of immunotherapy in early-stage breast cancer and suggest new avenues for how to exploit these drugs in hormone receptor [HR]–positive breast cancers,” said Pusztai.

He presented the results at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting, which took place online, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxicities, including financial

“The benefits from immunotherapy are clearly emerging in early and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, likely with PD-L1 expression. However, there’s much more uncertainty in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors whether there is benefit and who will benefit from immunotherapy,” commented Pamela N. Munster, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was the invited discussant.

“The signal of a better pCR rate among patients in the ultra-high Mammaprint group may allow selection of patients with HR-positive disease who may benefit from immunotherapeutic agents and/or PARP inhibitors,” she said.

Munster noted that the approximately 10% higher rate of immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater that was seen with the combination appears similar to that seen in other studies, but anemia and fatigue appeared to be less frequent with durvalumab/olaparaib and paclitaxel in comparison with paclitaxel alone.

“In the absence of a clear delineation of the contribution of olaparib, some weight should be given to the financial burden of adding both durvalumab and olaparib to a preoperative regimen,” she said.

The additional cost of durvalumab is approximately $34,000, and adding olaparib boosts that by about $22,000 more, Munster said.
 

Ongoing platform trial

The new results come from one arm of the ongoing Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response Through Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2 (I-SPY-2) trial. This is an ongoing platform trial that is exploring the use of new drugs in combination with a standard neoadjuvant therapy backbone for the treatment of high-risk cancers.

In this trial, women with stage II or III breast cancer with tumors 2.5 cm or larger are assessed for one of eight biomarker subtypes according to HER2 status, HR status, and genetic risk factors, as determined on the basis of a 70-gene assay. The patients within each biomarker subtype are randomly assigned to receive standard therapy either with or without an investigational agent.

For each subtrial, a primary endpoint is an improvement in pCR in comparison with the standard of care.

Changes in tumor volume on MRI are used to predict whether patients will achieve a pCR. Those who are considered to have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success are eligible for moving on to phase 3 trials.

The I-SPY-2 trial was described in detail by principal investigator Laura J. Esserman, MD, MBA, from the Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, in a 2017 interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

As previously reported, the first drugs to “graduate” from the trial were the HER2/HER4 inhibitor neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma Biotechnology) and the investigational PARP inhibitor veliparib (AbbVie).
 

Study details

The I-SPY-2 results that Pusztai reported at the AACR meeting were based on an analysis of 73 HER2-negative patients, including 21 patients with TNBC and 52 with HR-positive tumors with Mammaprint high-risk features. These patients underwent treatment with durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for three cycles, olaparib 100 mg twice daily for weeks 1 through 11, and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks, followed by AC chemotherapy (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) for four cycles.

The 299 patients in the control arm received paclitaxel and chemotherapy only.

In all three biomarker subsets studied, durvalumab and olaparib increased pCR rates compared with controls, as shown in the table.

The probability that the combination was superior to control in each subgroup approached 100%, Pusztai noted.

Adverse events with the combination were consistent with known side effects of the drugs, he commented. Immune-related grade 3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 1.6% in the control arm.

Higher pCR rates were seen in the subset of immune-rich tumors among all cancer subtypes and in both study arms.

“Exploratory analysis suggests several potential predictive markers of durvalumab/olaparib benefit over chemotherapy alone,” Pusztai reported.

These markers included Mammaprint MP2 (ultra high) versus MP1 in HR+/HER2– tumors, and low CD3/CD8 gene signature ratio, high macrophage/Tc-class 2 gene signature ratio, and high proliferation signature, all of which were associated with higher pCR rates in the experimental arm among patients with TNBC.

The trial was supported by the William K. Bowes Jr Foundation, Foundation for the NIH, Give Breast Cancer the Boot, UCSF, the Biomarkers Consortium, IQVIA, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Safeway, California Breast Cancer Research Program, Breast Cancer Research–Atwater Trust, and Stand Up to Cancer. Pusztai has received honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and other companies. Munster has received research and travel support from and has served on the scientific advisory boards of AstraZeneca and other companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

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.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

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.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment seen in women with early breast cancer who undergo chemotherapy – so-called chemobrain – has now been reported in patients who are treated with endocrine therapy alone.

“The cognitive decline that we observed with endocrine therapy alone was really surprising and very eye-opening, because I think we have generally assumed that hormone therapy is very well tolerated,” lead author Lynne I. Wagner, PhD, professor of social science and health policy at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, told Medscape Medical News.

“I think this is very important,” she added. “If you have a patient who has been on endocrine therapy for 3 years, don’t just assume that she’s fine and her cognitive function isn’t a concern, because for many women, it is very much a lingering and persistent concern.”

The findings come from a substudy analysis of 218 women who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone.

For most women in the study (58%), endocrine therapy initially consisted of an aromatase inhibitor; 37% of patients received tamoxifen, the researchers report. For chemotherapy, the most common regimens were docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (70%) and anthracycline-based therapy (20%).

Women who received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy experienced early and abrupt cognitive decline at 3 and 6 months following treatment; the decline leveled off at 12 and 36 months.

Women who were randomly assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone also experienced loss of cognition, but the loss was more gradual, and, by 36 months, it was the same as occurred in women who had received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

The researchers also found that cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels, regardless of the treatment the women received.

“We were surprised by the finding that women’s cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels after finishing chemotherapy, but neither did the group receiving endocrine therapy alone. This highlights the importance of continuing to ask women who are receiving hormonal treatment for breast cancer about their cognitive function, even if they have been on treatment for a few years,” she said.

The findings come from a substudy of the Trial Assigning Individualized Treatment Options (TAILORx) and were published on April 9 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

An important contribution

The results of this study make an important contribution toward understanding the potential adverse cognitive effects of chemotherapy in combination with endocrine therapy and endocrine therapy alone, write Patricia A. Ganz, MD, and Kathleen Van Dyk, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial.

However, there was a difference in the effects on cognition with respect to menopausal status, and this should be a covariate or stratification variable, Ganz told Medscape Medical News.

“Clearly, this study shows that endocrine therapy is problematic. Certainly for younger women, the decrement is much worse. It may be that the brain of a young woman who has not yet gone through menopause is ill prepared, if you will, for these hormonal changes, whereas, in older women, even though they may be ill prepared for the toxicity of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy may not be as disruptive, because they have already adjusted to a low-estrogen state,” Ganz said.

“As a clinician, I can say that most of the complaints I hear are from younger women. Older women don’t really complain that much, and this may be because they are at a time in life when they don’t have to multitask, they can sleep late in the morning, and they do not have the same kind of management pressures that a younger woman would have,” she said.
 

“Unparalleled opportunity”

Before TAILORx, it was impossible to quantify the extent to which chemotherapy contributed to cognitive impairment, because all women received chemotherapy, Wagner told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been unable to isolate how much chemotherapy contributed versus all of the other aspects of having cancer, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy. The design of TAILORx gave us an unparalleled opportunity to uniquely isolate the extent to which chemotherapy contributes to cognitive impairment,” she explained.

TAILORx enrolled 10,273 patients with breast cancer from April 2006 through October 2010. It was amended in January 2010 to include a patient-reported outcome substudy, which assessed cognitive impairment and other symptoms, such as fatigue, endocrine symptoms, and overall health-related quality of life.

All patients had hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, axillary node–negative early breast cancer and a midrange 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25.

Cognitive impairment was assessed in a subgroup of women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, which was administered at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

The primary endpoint was the score on the 20-item FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, which is part of the FACT-Cog questionnaire, at 3 months after randomization. The scale scores of the PCI range from 0 to 80, with a higher score indicating better cognitive status.

Of the 734 women who were enrolled in TAILORx after the start of the substudy, 218 women in the group who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone had evaluable FACT-Cog PCI data at baseline and at 3 months.

For both treatment groups, FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, compared to baseline scores.

However, the pattern of cognitive decline differed between the treatment groups. Among women in the chemotherapy group, impairment was more significant at 3 months (mean PCI score, –3.82; P < .001) and at 6 months (mean PCI score, –2.62; P = .02), compared with the women who received endocrine therapy alone.

PCI scores were comparable in both treatment arms at 12, 24, and 36 months.

“This was not because the women who had chemotherapy improved but because women on endocrine therapy were also reporting a gradual increase in cognitive impairment at 12 months that persisted at 24 and 36 months. So the pace of their cognitive decline was slower and more gradual,” Wagner said.
 

TAILORx results highlight need for effective interventions

“I was excited to see the publication of this work,” Jamie S. Myers, PhD, RN, of University of Kansas School of Nursing, Kansas City, told Medscape Medical News.

“Drs. Wagner and Cella have been so instrumental in the development of the FACT PROs, and we have used the FACT-Cog PCI subscale in much of our work. The TAILORx study provided a beautiful opportunity to capture PRO data for women with early breast cancer randomized to chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone, and I was not surprised that endocrine therapy was associated with reports of cognitive decline,” Myers said in email correspondence.

“This study further confirms the work conducted by my mentor, Dr. Catherine Bender at the University of Pittsburgh. Women receiving endocrine therapy continue to report issues with cognitive function. What was encouraging about this study was confirmation that the contribution of chemotherapy to the cognitive decline that women experience does level out at 12 months for the majority of women. However, as the results clearly demonstrated, neither group in this study returned to baseline by 36 months, likely due to the ongoing impact of the endocrine therapy,” she said.

“I completely agree with the researchers that we must continue to vigilantly monitor and assess women for cognitive changes throughout their treatment trajectory. And these study results certainly highlight the need for effective interventions to either prevent or mitigate the cognitive effects of breast cancer treatment. I hope these researchers will continue to assess women’s report of cognitive function for a significant period of time after endocrine therapy is completed. This would give us very important information about the recovery trajectory for cognitive function once endocrine therapy is complete. I would also hope they would break down the results by category of endocrine therapy, for example, specific aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen, as this too could yield important information,” Myers said.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner, Ganz, Van Dyk, and Myers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment seen in women with early breast cancer who undergo chemotherapy – so-called chemobrain – has now been reported in patients who are treated with endocrine therapy alone.

“The cognitive decline that we observed with endocrine therapy alone was really surprising and very eye-opening, because I think we have generally assumed that hormone therapy is very well tolerated,” lead author Lynne I. Wagner, PhD, professor of social science and health policy at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, told Medscape Medical News.

“I think this is very important,” she added. “If you have a patient who has been on endocrine therapy for 3 years, don’t just assume that she’s fine and her cognitive function isn’t a concern, because for many women, it is very much a lingering and persistent concern.”

The findings come from a substudy analysis of 218 women who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone.

For most women in the study (58%), endocrine therapy initially consisted of an aromatase inhibitor; 37% of patients received tamoxifen, the researchers report. For chemotherapy, the most common regimens were docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (70%) and anthracycline-based therapy (20%).

Women who received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy experienced early and abrupt cognitive decline at 3 and 6 months following treatment; the decline leveled off at 12 and 36 months.

Women who were randomly assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone also experienced loss of cognition, but the loss was more gradual, and, by 36 months, it was the same as occurred in women who had received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

The researchers also found that cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels, regardless of the treatment the women received.

“We were surprised by the finding that women’s cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels after finishing chemotherapy, but neither did the group receiving endocrine therapy alone. This highlights the importance of continuing to ask women who are receiving hormonal treatment for breast cancer about their cognitive function, even if they have been on treatment for a few years,” she said.

The findings come from a substudy of the Trial Assigning Individualized Treatment Options (TAILORx) and were published on April 9 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

An important contribution

The results of this study make an important contribution toward understanding the potential adverse cognitive effects of chemotherapy in combination with endocrine therapy and endocrine therapy alone, write Patricia A. Ganz, MD, and Kathleen Van Dyk, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial.

However, there was a difference in the effects on cognition with respect to menopausal status, and this should be a covariate or stratification variable, Ganz told Medscape Medical News.

“Clearly, this study shows that endocrine therapy is problematic. Certainly for younger women, the decrement is much worse. It may be that the brain of a young woman who has not yet gone through menopause is ill prepared, if you will, for these hormonal changes, whereas, in older women, even though they may be ill prepared for the toxicity of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy may not be as disruptive, because they have already adjusted to a low-estrogen state,” Ganz said.

“As a clinician, I can say that most of the complaints I hear are from younger women. Older women don’t really complain that much, and this may be because they are at a time in life when they don’t have to multitask, they can sleep late in the morning, and they do not have the same kind of management pressures that a younger woman would have,” she said.
 

“Unparalleled opportunity”

Before TAILORx, it was impossible to quantify the extent to which chemotherapy contributed to cognitive impairment, because all women received chemotherapy, Wagner told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been unable to isolate how much chemotherapy contributed versus all of the other aspects of having cancer, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy. The design of TAILORx gave us an unparalleled opportunity to uniquely isolate the extent to which chemotherapy contributes to cognitive impairment,” she explained.

TAILORx enrolled 10,273 patients with breast cancer from April 2006 through October 2010. It was amended in January 2010 to include a patient-reported outcome substudy, which assessed cognitive impairment and other symptoms, such as fatigue, endocrine symptoms, and overall health-related quality of life.

All patients had hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, axillary node–negative early breast cancer and a midrange 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25.

Cognitive impairment was assessed in a subgroup of women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, which was administered at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

The primary endpoint was the score on the 20-item FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, which is part of the FACT-Cog questionnaire, at 3 months after randomization. The scale scores of the PCI range from 0 to 80, with a higher score indicating better cognitive status.

Of the 734 women who were enrolled in TAILORx after the start of the substudy, 218 women in the group who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone had evaluable FACT-Cog PCI data at baseline and at 3 months.

For both treatment groups, FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, compared to baseline scores.

However, the pattern of cognitive decline differed between the treatment groups. Among women in the chemotherapy group, impairment was more significant at 3 months (mean PCI score, –3.82; P < .001) and at 6 months (mean PCI score, –2.62; P = .02), compared with the women who received endocrine therapy alone.

PCI scores were comparable in both treatment arms at 12, 24, and 36 months.

“This was not because the women who had chemotherapy improved but because women on endocrine therapy were also reporting a gradual increase in cognitive impairment at 12 months that persisted at 24 and 36 months. So the pace of their cognitive decline was slower and more gradual,” Wagner said.
 

TAILORx results highlight need for effective interventions

“I was excited to see the publication of this work,” Jamie S. Myers, PhD, RN, of University of Kansas School of Nursing, Kansas City, told Medscape Medical News.

“Drs. Wagner and Cella have been so instrumental in the development of the FACT PROs, and we have used the FACT-Cog PCI subscale in much of our work. The TAILORx study provided a beautiful opportunity to capture PRO data for women with early breast cancer randomized to chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone, and I was not surprised that endocrine therapy was associated with reports of cognitive decline,” Myers said in email correspondence.

“This study further confirms the work conducted by my mentor, Dr. Catherine Bender at the University of Pittsburgh. Women receiving endocrine therapy continue to report issues with cognitive function. What was encouraging about this study was confirmation that the contribution of chemotherapy to the cognitive decline that women experience does level out at 12 months for the majority of women. However, as the results clearly demonstrated, neither group in this study returned to baseline by 36 months, likely due to the ongoing impact of the endocrine therapy,” she said.

“I completely agree with the researchers that we must continue to vigilantly monitor and assess women for cognitive changes throughout their treatment trajectory. And these study results certainly highlight the need for effective interventions to either prevent or mitigate the cognitive effects of breast cancer treatment. I hope these researchers will continue to assess women’s report of cognitive function for a significant period of time after endocrine therapy is completed. This would give us very important information about the recovery trajectory for cognitive function once endocrine therapy is complete. I would also hope they would break down the results by category of endocrine therapy, for example, specific aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen, as this too could yield important information,” Myers said.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner, Ganz, Van Dyk, and Myers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cognitive impairment seen in women with early breast cancer who undergo chemotherapy – so-called chemobrain – has now been reported in patients who are treated with endocrine therapy alone.

“The cognitive decline that we observed with endocrine therapy alone was really surprising and very eye-opening, because I think we have generally assumed that hormone therapy is very well tolerated,” lead author Lynne I. Wagner, PhD, professor of social science and health policy at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, told Medscape Medical News.

“I think this is very important,” she added. “If you have a patient who has been on endocrine therapy for 3 years, don’t just assume that she’s fine and her cognitive function isn’t a concern, because for many women, it is very much a lingering and persistent concern.”

The findings come from a substudy analysis of 218 women who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone.

For most women in the study (58%), endocrine therapy initially consisted of an aromatase inhibitor; 37% of patients received tamoxifen, the researchers report. For chemotherapy, the most common regimens were docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (70%) and anthracycline-based therapy (20%).

Women who received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy experienced early and abrupt cognitive decline at 3 and 6 months following treatment; the decline leveled off at 12 and 36 months.

Women who were randomly assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone also experienced loss of cognition, but the loss was more gradual, and, by 36 months, it was the same as occurred in women who had received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

The researchers also found that cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels, regardless of the treatment the women received.

“We were surprised by the finding that women’s cognitive function did not return to pretreatment levels after finishing chemotherapy, but neither did the group receiving endocrine therapy alone. This highlights the importance of continuing to ask women who are receiving hormonal treatment for breast cancer about their cognitive function, even if they have been on treatment for a few years,” she said.

The findings come from a substudy of the Trial Assigning Individualized Treatment Options (TAILORx) and were published on April 9 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

An important contribution

The results of this study make an important contribution toward understanding the potential adverse cognitive effects of chemotherapy in combination with endocrine therapy and endocrine therapy alone, write Patricia A. Ganz, MD, and Kathleen Van Dyk, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial.

However, there was a difference in the effects on cognition with respect to menopausal status, and this should be a covariate or stratification variable, Ganz told Medscape Medical News.

“Clearly, this study shows that endocrine therapy is problematic. Certainly for younger women, the decrement is much worse. It may be that the brain of a young woman who has not yet gone through menopause is ill prepared, if you will, for these hormonal changes, whereas, in older women, even though they may be ill prepared for the toxicity of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy may not be as disruptive, because they have already adjusted to a low-estrogen state,” Ganz said.

“As a clinician, I can say that most of the complaints I hear are from younger women. Older women don’t really complain that much, and this may be because they are at a time in life when they don’t have to multitask, they can sleep late in the morning, and they do not have the same kind of management pressures that a younger woman would have,” she said.
 

“Unparalleled opportunity”

Before TAILORx, it was impossible to quantify the extent to which chemotherapy contributed to cognitive impairment, because all women received chemotherapy, Wagner told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been unable to isolate how much chemotherapy contributed versus all of the other aspects of having cancer, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy. The design of TAILORx gave us an unparalleled opportunity to uniquely isolate the extent to which chemotherapy contributes to cognitive impairment,” she explained.

TAILORx enrolled 10,273 patients with breast cancer from April 2006 through October 2010. It was amended in January 2010 to include a patient-reported outcome substudy, which assessed cognitive impairment and other symptoms, such as fatigue, endocrine symptoms, and overall health-related quality of life.

All patients had hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, axillary node–negative early breast cancer and a midrange 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25.

Cognitive impairment was assessed in a subgroup of women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, which was administered at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

The primary endpoint was the score on the 20-item FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, which is part of the FACT-Cog questionnaire, at 3 months after randomization. The scale scores of the PCI range from 0 to 80, with a higher score indicating better cognitive status.

Of the 734 women who were enrolled in TAILORx after the start of the substudy, 218 women in the group who received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 236 women who received endocrine therapy alone had evaluable FACT-Cog PCI data at baseline and at 3 months.

For both treatment groups, FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, compared to baseline scores.

However, the pattern of cognitive decline differed between the treatment groups. Among women in the chemotherapy group, impairment was more significant at 3 months (mean PCI score, –3.82; P < .001) and at 6 months (mean PCI score, –2.62; P = .02), compared with the women who received endocrine therapy alone.

PCI scores were comparable in both treatment arms at 12, 24, and 36 months.

“This was not because the women who had chemotherapy improved but because women on endocrine therapy were also reporting a gradual increase in cognitive impairment at 12 months that persisted at 24 and 36 months. So the pace of their cognitive decline was slower and more gradual,” Wagner said.
 

TAILORx results highlight need for effective interventions

“I was excited to see the publication of this work,” Jamie S. Myers, PhD, RN, of University of Kansas School of Nursing, Kansas City, told Medscape Medical News.

“Drs. Wagner and Cella have been so instrumental in the development of the FACT PROs, and we have used the FACT-Cog PCI subscale in much of our work. The TAILORx study provided a beautiful opportunity to capture PRO data for women with early breast cancer randomized to chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone, and I was not surprised that endocrine therapy was associated with reports of cognitive decline,” Myers said in email correspondence.

“This study further confirms the work conducted by my mentor, Dr. Catherine Bender at the University of Pittsburgh. Women receiving endocrine therapy continue to report issues with cognitive function. What was encouraging about this study was confirmation that the contribution of chemotherapy to the cognitive decline that women experience does level out at 12 months for the majority of women. However, as the results clearly demonstrated, neither group in this study returned to baseline by 36 months, likely due to the ongoing impact of the endocrine therapy,” she said.

“I completely agree with the researchers that we must continue to vigilantly monitor and assess women for cognitive changes throughout their treatment trajectory. And these study results certainly highlight the need for effective interventions to either prevent or mitigate the cognitive effects of breast cancer treatment. I hope these researchers will continue to assess women’s report of cognitive function for a significant period of time after endocrine therapy is completed. This would give us very important information about the recovery trajectory for cognitive function once endocrine therapy is complete. I would also hope they would break down the results by category of endocrine therapy, for example, specific aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen, as this too could yield important information,” Myers said.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Wagner, Ganz, Van Dyk, and Myers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.