User login
Want to keep cancer patients and providers safe during the pandemic? Here’s how
according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.
These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
Screening patients
Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.
Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.
“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
Telemedicine and treatment
Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.
“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.
When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.
Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
Protecting providers
Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.
The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.
Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.
Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.
“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”
The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.
according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.
These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
Screening patients
Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.
Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.
“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
Telemedicine and treatment
Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.
“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.
When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.
Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
Protecting providers
Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.
The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.
Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.
Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.
“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”
The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.
according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.
These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
Screening patients
Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.
Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.
“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
Telemedicine and treatment
Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.
“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.
When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.
Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
Protecting providers
Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.
The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.
Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.
Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.
“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”
The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK
FDA approves first new breast cancer drug with international group
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.
Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.
The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.
While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.
“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.
The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.
“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.
Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.
Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.
Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.
The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.
The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.
According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.
Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.
Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.
The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.
While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.
“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.
The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.
“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.
Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.
Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.
Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.
The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.
The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.
According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.
Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.
Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.
The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.
While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.
“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.
The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.
“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.
Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.
Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.
Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.
The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.
The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.
According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.
Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer patients report delays in treatment because of COVID-19
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.
Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).
“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.
In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.
As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.
Half of those in active treatment report disruptions
The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.
Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Financial concerns
Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.
Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”
The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).
A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer
Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.
“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
Taking action
“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.
With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.
The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.
“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.
Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).
“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.
In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.
As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.
Half of those in active treatment report disruptions
The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.
Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Financial concerns
Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.
Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”
The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).
A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer
Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.
“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
Taking action
“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.
With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.
The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.
“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.
Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).
“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.
In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.
As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.
Half of those in active treatment report disruptions
The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.
Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Financial concerns
Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.
Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”
The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).
A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer
Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.
“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
Taking action
“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.
With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.
The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.
“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer care ‘transformed in space of a month’ because of pandemic
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.
“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.
“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.
“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.
“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”
The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.
“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”
Pandemic impact on oncology
While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.
They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.
“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.
On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”
It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.
These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”
Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Breast-conserving surgery deemed okay in high-risk hereditary breast cancers
It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.
Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.
In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.
However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.
“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”
Weighing options for surgery
The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.
When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.
If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.
The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.
Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”
Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.
Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.
Considerations for radiation
Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.
There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.
“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.
Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors
For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.
Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.
The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.
“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”
By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.
The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.
It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.
Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.
In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.
However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.
“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”
Weighing options for surgery
The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.
When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.
If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.
The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.
Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”
Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.
Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.
Considerations for radiation
Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.
There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.
“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.
Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors
For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.
Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.
The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.
“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”
By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.
The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.
It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.
Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.
In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.
However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.
“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”
Weighing options for surgery
The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.
When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.
If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.
The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.
Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”
Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.
Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.
Considerations for radiation
Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.
There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.
“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.
Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors
For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.
Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.
The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.
“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”
By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.
The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Oncologists need to advocate for scarce COVID-19 resources: ASCO
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.
“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.
Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.
“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.
“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”
He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.
“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”
He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.
“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.
“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
Cancer patients are doing very well
Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.
Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”
Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”
He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”
Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.
“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.
He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO announces its own COVID-19 and cancer registry
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
Data will not be commercialized, unlike CancerLinQ
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.
The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.
In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.
The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.
The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.
Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.
CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.
Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.
Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.
ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.
ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.
ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.
The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer prevalence among COVID-19 patients may be higher than previously reported
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.
However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.
More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.
Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.
That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.
Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).
However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.
Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.
“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.
SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.
FROM JCO GLOBAL ONCOLOGY
When to treat, delay, or omit breast cancer therapy in the face of COVID-19
Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.
A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.
A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
Prioritizing certain patients and treatments
As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.
“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.
The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:
- Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
- Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
- Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”
For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
Surgery and drug recommendations
High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.
Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.
The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.
In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
Radiation therapy recommendations
The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.
“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.
The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:
- Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
- Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
- Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).
The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.
SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.
A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.
A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
Prioritizing certain patients and treatments
As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.
“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.
The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:
- Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
- Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
- Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”
For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
Surgery and drug recommendations
High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.
Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.
The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.
In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
Radiation therapy recommendations
The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.
“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.
The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:
- Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
- Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
- Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).
The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.
SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.
A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.
A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
Prioritizing certain patients and treatments
As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.
“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.
The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:
- Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
- Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
- Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”
For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
Surgery and drug recommendations
High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.
Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.
The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.
In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
Radiation therapy recommendations
The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.
“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.
The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:
- Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
- Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
- Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.
The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).
The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.
SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Home-based chemo skyrockets at one U.S. center
Major organization opposes concept
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Major organization opposes concept
Major organization opposes concept
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.
The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.
Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.
Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.
“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.
“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”
For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.
This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.
The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.
Opposition because of safety concerns
On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”
In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.
What’s involved
Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.
The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.
The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.
The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.
Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.
The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.
Already practiced in some European countries
Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.
A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”
However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.
Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.
A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.
One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.
COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.
Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.
Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.