User login
Circulating Tumor DNA Predicts Early Treatment Response in Patients With HER2-Positive Cancers
This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.
Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.
“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
Need for new methods to predict early tumor response
Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.
During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.
“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.
Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.
“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.
In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays
In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).
By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).
During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival
The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).
Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).
“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.
Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”
The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.
In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”
Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials
Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.
“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.
He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.
“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.
Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.
Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.
“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
Need for new methods to predict early tumor response
Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.
During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.
“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.
Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.
“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.
In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays
In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).
By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).
During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival
The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).
Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).
“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.
Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”
The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.
In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”
Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials
Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.
“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.
He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.
“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.
Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.
Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.
“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
Need for new methods to predict early tumor response
Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.
During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.
“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.
Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.
“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.
In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays
In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).
By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).
During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival
The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).
Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).
“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.
Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”
The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.
In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”
Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials
Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.
“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.
He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.
“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.
Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
FROM AACR 2024
Repeat MCED Testing May ID Early-Stage and Unscreened Cancers
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.
The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.
The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.
“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”
“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.
This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing
Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.
During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.
She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers
The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.
“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.
She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.
“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers
Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.
“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.
During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.
“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup
The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.
“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”
He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.
“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.
Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
FROM AACR 2024
ImPrint Identifies Patients With Breast Cancer Likely to Respond to Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.
Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.
She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.
“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.
She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature
Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.
This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.
The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.
“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.
When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.
In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.
“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes
During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.
“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers
The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.
The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).
“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection
Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.
“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.
Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.
Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Enhertu Indication to HER2-Positive Solid Tumors
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes Predict Better Breast Cancer Outcomes?
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
The association of abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer tissue with outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not receive chemotherapy has not been well studied, wrote Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, in JAMA.
Biomarkers to guide systemic treatment and avoid overtreatment are lacking, and such markers could help identify patients who could achieve increased survival with less intensive therapy, continued the authors of the new study of nearly 2000 individuals.
“TNBC is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer, and for this reason, current treatment guidelines recommend chemotherapy using multiple drugs either before or after surgery,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview. “We have learned over the last several years that TNBC is not a single disease, but that there are several subtypes of TNBC that have different risks and different vulnerabilities, and treating all patients similarly may not be optimal.”
What is Known About Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Cancer?
Previous studies have shown improved survival in patients with early-stage TNBC and high levels of TILs who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with those with lower TILs. In a pooled analysis of 2148 patients from nine studies published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, a higher percentage of TILs in the stroma surrounding a tumor was significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.
Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022 showed that elevated TILs were significant predictors of overall survival, but the study included fewer than 500 patients.
The potential mechanisms that drive the association between elevated TILs and improved survival include the ability of TILs to attack cancer cells, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether TILs could identify a subset of patients with TNBC who had a very low risk of cancer recurrence even if chemotherapy was not given.
“Indeed, we found that patients with stage I TNBC and high TILs had a very low risk of recurrence even when chemotherapy was not administered. These findings will pave the way for future studies aiming to reduce the need for multiple chemotherapy drugs in patients with stage I TNBC and decrease the side effects that patients face,” he said.
What Does the New Study Add?
The current study included 1966 individuals from 13 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia who were diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 and were treated with surgery, with or without radiotherapy but with no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The researchers examined the abundance of TILs in the breast tissue of resected primary tumors; the primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), with recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and overall survival as secondary outcomes.
The median age of the patients was 56 years, 55% had stage I TNBC, and the median TIL level was 15%.
A total of 417 patients had a TIL level of 50% or more, and the 5-year iDFS for these patients was 94%, compared with 78% for those with a TIL level less than 30%. Similarly, 5-year overall survival was 95% in patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% for patients with TIL levels of less than 30%.
Additionally, each 10% increase in TILs was independently associated not only with improved iDFS (hazard ratio[HR], 0.92), but also improved recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.90), distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.87), and overall survival (HR, 0.88) over a median follow-up of 18 years.
The current study shows that cancer stage based on tumor size and the number of lymph nodes should not be the only considerations for making treatment decisions and predicting outcomes, Dr. Leon-Ferre said in an interview.
“In fact, our study shows that for tumors of the same stage (particularly for stage I), the risk of recurrence is different depending on the number of TILs seen in the breast cancer tissue. When chemo is not given, those with high TILs have lower risk of recurrence, whereas those with low TILs have a higher risk of recurrence,” he said.
What are the Limitations of This Research?
The current study findings are limited by the retrospective design and use of observational data, so the researchers could not make conclusions about causality. Other limitations included lack of data on germline mutations and race or ethnicity, and the potential irrelevance of data from patients treated as long as 45 years ago.
“Because most patients with TNBC receive chemotherapy in the modern times, we needed to work with 13 hospitals around the world to find data on patients with TNBC who never received chemotherapy for various reasons,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
To address these limitations, Dr. Leone-Ferre and his colleagues are planning prospective studies where TILs will be used to make treatment decisions.
“Many of the patients in our cohort were treated many years ago, when chemotherapy was not routinely given. Advances in cancer detection, surgical and radiation techniques may lead to different results in patients treated today,” he added.
What Do Oncologists Need to Know?
The current study findings may provide additional information on prognosis that is important to share with patients for decision-making on the risks versus benefits of chemotherapy, Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
“Like any test, TILs should not be used in isolation to make decisions, but should be integrated with other factors including the cancer stage, the overall patient health, patient preferences, and concerns about treatment complications,” he emphasized. “The results of this study allow oncologists to offer a more refined calculation of recurrence risk if patients opt to not receive chemotherapy.”
In the current study, although younger age was associated with higher TIL levels, a finding consistent with previous studies, increased TIL, remained significantly associated with improved survival after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, and histological grade.
Overall, “the findings suggest that for patients with stage I TNBC and TILs greater than 50%, chemotherapy may not be as necessary as it was previously thought,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said.
What Additional Research is Needed?
Prospective studies are needed to validate the findings, including studies in diverse populations, and additional studies may investigate whether early TBNC patients with high TIL levels could achieve high cure rates with less intensive and less toxic chemotherapy regiments than those currently recommended, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
“There are many additional research questions that we need to answer, and look forward to working on,” Dr. Leon-Ferre said, in an interview. These topics include whether TILs can be used to decide on the number of chemotherapy drugs a patient really needs and whether artificial intelligence can be used to evaluate TILs more quickly and effectively than the human eye, he said. Other research topics include identifying which particular type of TILs attack cancer cells most effectively and whether TILs could be increased in patients with low levels in order to improve their prognosis, he added.
The study was supported by the National Research Agency and General Secretariat for Investment, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant, the Cancer Research Society of Canada, institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research, and several foundations. Dr. Leon-Ferre disclosed consulting honoraria to his institution for research activities from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Lyell Immunopharma, with no personal fees outside the submitted work.
FROM JAMA
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
Older, Breastfeeding Mothers Face Differing Advice About Mammograms
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
Polygenic Risk Scores Improve Breast Cancer Screening
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.
To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.
The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.
The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.
TAKEAWAY:
Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).
A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.
A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.
Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.
IN PRACTICE:
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.
To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.
The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.
The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.
TAKEAWAY:
Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).
A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.
A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.
Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.
IN PRACTICE:
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.
To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.
The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.
The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.
TAKEAWAY:
Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).
A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.
A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.
Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.
IN PRACTICE:
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.