User login
VIDEO: Survival improves when cancer patients self-report symptoms
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
AT THE 2017 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Median overall survival was 31.2, vs. 26 months, with self-reporting of symptoms, vs. usual care.
Data source: A randomized controlled clinical trial of 766 patients.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
VIDEO: Routine genomic testing identifies actionable alterations in 52% of tumors
CHICAGO –
Molecular profiling, including genetic sequencing and copy number variation analysis, was performed in 1944 tumors from patients with advanced tumors enrolled in the profiLER study. Of the tumors screened, mutations deemed actionable were identified in 1,004 (52%), with 394 patients having two or more actionable targets, and the remainder having one identified targeted treatment. A molecular targeted treatment was recommended for 676 patients (35% of those tested).
“We showed that the patients who did receive the molecular targeted agents were doing better in terms of overall survival,” said Olivier Tredan, MD, PhD, the study’s lead investigator. Noting that these are trends as the trial was not randomized, he reported that the overall survival (OS) for those receiving targeted treatments was 53.7% at 3 years, compared with 46.1% for those who did not receive targeted treatment. The trend continued out to 5 years, with the OS for the targeted treatment group at 34.8%, compared with 28.1% OS for those who did not receive targeted treatment, he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Many patients either were too sick to receive the recommended treatment or died before they could be treated, Dr. Tredan said in a video interview.
Of the patients who did receive targeted treatment, over 60% received mTOR inhibitors. The next most common therapies were multitarget tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR)–inhibiting/antiangiogenic therapies, received by about one-third of patients. Fewer than one in five patients received any other therapies. Tumor types were colorectal, gynecological, breast, head and neck carcinomas, sarcomas, and brain tumors.
A new randomized clinical study, profiLER 2, is planned. The new study will pit a 315-gene commercial test against the 69-gene test used in profiLER 1, to see whether casting a wider net yields more targets for therapy.
Still, knowing that a treatment might help is useful only if the patient can actually receive the drug, said Dr. Tredan. “What we want is more molecular targeted agent initiation, so we need to have larger screening programs, but we need also to have access to novel targeted agents.”
Dr. Tredan reported financial relationships with Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO –
Molecular profiling, including genetic sequencing and copy number variation analysis, was performed in 1944 tumors from patients with advanced tumors enrolled in the profiLER study. Of the tumors screened, mutations deemed actionable were identified in 1,004 (52%), with 394 patients having two or more actionable targets, and the remainder having one identified targeted treatment. A molecular targeted treatment was recommended for 676 patients (35% of those tested).
“We showed that the patients who did receive the molecular targeted agents were doing better in terms of overall survival,” said Olivier Tredan, MD, PhD, the study’s lead investigator. Noting that these are trends as the trial was not randomized, he reported that the overall survival (OS) for those receiving targeted treatments was 53.7% at 3 years, compared with 46.1% for those who did not receive targeted treatment. The trend continued out to 5 years, with the OS for the targeted treatment group at 34.8%, compared with 28.1% OS for those who did not receive targeted treatment, he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Many patients either were too sick to receive the recommended treatment or died before they could be treated, Dr. Tredan said in a video interview.
Of the patients who did receive targeted treatment, over 60% received mTOR inhibitors. The next most common therapies were multitarget tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR)–inhibiting/antiangiogenic therapies, received by about one-third of patients. Fewer than one in five patients received any other therapies. Tumor types were colorectal, gynecological, breast, head and neck carcinomas, sarcomas, and brain tumors.
A new randomized clinical study, profiLER 2, is planned. The new study will pit a 315-gene commercial test against the 69-gene test used in profiLER 1, to see whether casting a wider net yields more targets for therapy.
Still, knowing that a treatment might help is useful only if the patient can actually receive the drug, said Dr. Tredan. “What we want is more molecular targeted agent initiation, so we need to have larger screening programs, but we need also to have access to novel targeted agents.”
Dr. Tredan reported financial relationships with Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO –
Molecular profiling, including genetic sequencing and copy number variation analysis, was performed in 1944 tumors from patients with advanced tumors enrolled in the profiLER study. Of the tumors screened, mutations deemed actionable were identified in 1,004 (52%), with 394 patients having two or more actionable targets, and the remainder having one identified targeted treatment. A molecular targeted treatment was recommended for 676 patients (35% of those tested).
“We showed that the patients who did receive the molecular targeted agents were doing better in terms of overall survival,” said Olivier Tredan, MD, PhD, the study’s lead investigator. Noting that these are trends as the trial was not randomized, he reported that the overall survival (OS) for those receiving targeted treatments was 53.7% at 3 years, compared with 46.1% for those who did not receive targeted treatment. The trend continued out to 5 years, with the OS for the targeted treatment group at 34.8%, compared with 28.1% OS for those who did not receive targeted treatment, he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Many patients either were too sick to receive the recommended treatment or died before they could be treated, Dr. Tredan said in a video interview.
Of the patients who did receive targeted treatment, over 60% received mTOR inhibitors. The next most common therapies were multitarget tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR)–inhibiting/antiangiogenic therapies, received by about one-third of patients. Fewer than one in five patients received any other therapies. Tumor types were colorectal, gynecological, breast, head and neck carcinomas, sarcomas, and brain tumors.
A new randomized clinical study, profiLER 2, is planned. The new study will pit a 315-gene commercial test against the 69-gene test used in profiLER 1, to see whether casting a wider net yields more targets for therapy.
Still, knowing that a treatment might help is useful only if the patient can actually receive the drug, said Dr. Tredan. “What we want is more molecular targeted agent initiation, so we need to have larger screening programs, but we need also to have access to novel targeted agents.”
Dr. Tredan reported financial relationships with Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
AT ASCO 2017
Immune-agonist combo has activity against several tumor types
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point: A combination of a GITR-agonist and anti-PD-1 agent was safe and produced partial responses in patients with heavily pretreated advanced cancers.
Major finding: Two patients with cancers that had progression on a PD-1 inhibitor had durable partial responses.
Data source: A phase I/IIa dose-finding and safety study of BMS986156 alone or in combination with nivolumab (Opdivo).
Disclosures: The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising for several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
Biomarker predicts prolonged depression in breast cancer patients
SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly 40% of breast cancer patients experience prolonged depression lasting for at least 16 months after diagnosis of their malignancy; those at increased risk may be identifiable in a timely way by their exaggerated cortisol awakening response when measured after surgery but before adjuvant therapy, according to Kate R. Kuhlman, PhD.
“There are several psychological interventions that mitigate depressive symptoms and psychologic distress in women with breast cancer. This time period immediately following cancer diagnosis and surgery may be the optimal time to intervene,” said Dr. Kuhlman, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
She presented a prospective study of 135 women with breast cancer who collected saliva samples for analysis of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning on 3 consecutive days after their primary surgery but prior to starting adjuvant therapy. Samples were obtained on each of the 3 days upon awakening, 30 minutes later, 8 hours later, and at bedtime. The women also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) then and again 6 months after completing their breast cancer treatment.
At baseline, 45 of the 135 women scored 16 points or higher out of a possible 60 on the 20-question CES-D, indicative of clinically significant depression. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning wasn’t associated with depressive symptoms at that time. Importantly, however, one measure of baseline HPA axis functioning – the cortisol awakening response – proved to be associated with an increase in depressive symptoms over time, Dr. Kuhlman reported.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, breast cancer stage, type of surgery, and forms of adjuvant therapy, a 1-standard-deviation increase above the mean in baseline cortisol awakening response was associated with a 6-point increase in CES-D score at follow-up 6 months after completion of breast cancer therapy. This association was seen only in the 90 women without significant depressive symptoms at baseline. And that’s exactly the population where a predictive biologic marker for future depression is most needed, Dr. Kuhlman said at the annual conference of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.
“The people at highest risk of depressive symptoms in the future are the ones who have the most symptoms now. They’re easy to identify. We have good reliable measures. But then there are also people at risk whom we would miss by using those measures because they don’t have high symptoms right now,” the psychologist explained.
She and her coinvestigators zeroed in on cortisol awakening response as a potential biomarker of increased future risk of depression because it reflects the adrenal gland’s sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone and the gland’s ability to signal the pituitary to produce cortisol. This action is triggered when people go from sleep to awakening.
The next steps in this research are to confirm these novel findings and hunt for an alternative marker of adrenal sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone that’s simpler than sending a waking saliva sample off to a laboratory.
This ongoing longitudinal study is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuhlman reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly 40% of breast cancer patients experience prolonged depression lasting for at least 16 months after diagnosis of their malignancy; those at increased risk may be identifiable in a timely way by their exaggerated cortisol awakening response when measured after surgery but before adjuvant therapy, according to Kate R. Kuhlman, PhD.
“There are several psychological interventions that mitigate depressive symptoms and psychologic distress in women with breast cancer. This time period immediately following cancer diagnosis and surgery may be the optimal time to intervene,” said Dr. Kuhlman, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
She presented a prospective study of 135 women with breast cancer who collected saliva samples for analysis of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning on 3 consecutive days after their primary surgery but prior to starting adjuvant therapy. Samples were obtained on each of the 3 days upon awakening, 30 minutes later, 8 hours later, and at bedtime. The women also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) then and again 6 months after completing their breast cancer treatment.
At baseline, 45 of the 135 women scored 16 points or higher out of a possible 60 on the 20-question CES-D, indicative of clinically significant depression. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning wasn’t associated with depressive symptoms at that time. Importantly, however, one measure of baseline HPA axis functioning – the cortisol awakening response – proved to be associated with an increase in depressive symptoms over time, Dr. Kuhlman reported.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, breast cancer stage, type of surgery, and forms of adjuvant therapy, a 1-standard-deviation increase above the mean in baseline cortisol awakening response was associated with a 6-point increase in CES-D score at follow-up 6 months after completion of breast cancer therapy. This association was seen only in the 90 women without significant depressive symptoms at baseline. And that’s exactly the population where a predictive biologic marker for future depression is most needed, Dr. Kuhlman said at the annual conference of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.
“The people at highest risk of depressive symptoms in the future are the ones who have the most symptoms now. They’re easy to identify. We have good reliable measures. But then there are also people at risk whom we would miss by using those measures because they don’t have high symptoms right now,” the psychologist explained.
She and her coinvestigators zeroed in on cortisol awakening response as a potential biomarker of increased future risk of depression because it reflects the adrenal gland’s sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone and the gland’s ability to signal the pituitary to produce cortisol. This action is triggered when people go from sleep to awakening.
The next steps in this research are to confirm these novel findings and hunt for an alternative marker of adrenal sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone that’s simpler than sending a waking saliva sample off to a laboratory.
This ongoing longitudinal study is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuhlman reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly 40% of breast cancer patients experience prolonged depression lasting for at least 16 months after diagnosis of their malignancy; those at increased risk may be identifiable in a timely way by their exaggerated cortisol awakening response when measured after surgery but before adjuvant therapy, according to Kate R. Kuhlman, PhD.
“There are several psychological interventions that mitigate depressive symptoms and psychologic distress in women with breast cancer. This time period immediately following cancer diagnosis and surgery may be the optimal time to intervene,” said Dr. Kuhlman, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
She presented a prospective study of 135 women with breast cancer who collected saliva samples for analysis of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning on 3 consecutive days after their primary surgery but prior to starting adjuvant therapy. Samples were obtained on each of the 3 days upon awakening, 30 minutes later, 8 hours later, and at bedtime. The women also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) then and again 6 months after completing their breast cancer treatment.
At baseline, 45 of the 135 women scored 16 points or higher out of a possible 60 on the 20-question CES-D, indicative of clinically significant depression. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning wasn’t associated with depressive symptoms at that time. Importantly, however, one measure of baseline HPA axis functioning – the cortisol awakening response – proved to be associated with an increase in depressive symptoms over time, Dr. Kuhlman reported.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, breast cancer stage, type of surgery, and forms of adjuvant therapy, a 1-standard-deviation increase above the mean in baseline cortisol awakening response was associated with a 6-point increase in CES-D score at follow-up 6 months after completion of breast cancer therapy. This association was seen only in the 90 women without significant depressive symptoms at baseline. And that’s exactly the population where a predictive biologic marker for future depression is most needed, Dr. Kuhlman said at the annual conference of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.
“The people at highest risk of depressive symptoms in the future are the ones who have the most symptoms now. They’re easy to identify. We have good reliable measures. But then there are also people at risk whom we would miss by using those measures because they don’t have high symptoms right now,” the psychologist explained.
She and her coinvestigators zeroed in on cortisol awakening response as a potential biomarker of increased future risk of depression because it reflects the adrenal gland’s sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone and the gland’s ability to signal the pituitary to produce cortisol. This action is triggered when people go from sleep to awakening.
The next steps in this research are to confirm these novel findings and hunt for an alternative marker of adrenal sensitivity to adrenocorticotropic hormone that’s simpler than sending a waking saliva sample off to a laboratory.
This ongoing longitudinal study is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuhlman reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
AT ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION CONFERENCE 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Nondepressed breast cancer patients whose saliva samples show an exaggerated cortisol awakening response when measured after surgery but before adjuvant therapy are at increased risk for developing prolonged depression as treatment progresses.
Data source: A prospective longitudinal study of 135 women with breast cancer.
Disclosures: This ongoing study is funded by the National Cancer Institute. The presenter reported having no relevant financial conflicts.
Test goes wide and deep to detect free tumor DNA in blood
CHICAGO – An experimental liquid biopsy method plumbs the depths of the genome to detect a broad array of mutations in blood samples that closely correspond to variants in tumors.
The high-intensity method for detecting circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma detected at least one significant genetic variant in samples from 89% of patients with advanced breast, lung, and prostate cancers.
If validated in further studies, the technique could inform more accurate drug selection in patients with refractory disease and eventually may form the basis for plasma-based assays to detect early-stage cancers, said Pedram Razavi, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“This novel, high-intensity sequencing assay incorporates an unprecedented combination of depth and breadth of coverage compared to previous assays. High levels of concordance for variants between plasma and tissue provide strong evidence for high rates of tumor DNA detection in plasma,” he said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The technique also provides important insights into tumor biology, “including first exploration of mutational signatures in the plasma,” he added.
Deep scanning
The high-intensity sequencing method scans for 508 genes in a 2 million base-pair swath of genome, performing 60,000 repeat reads on each genome region to improve the assay’s sensitivity, and deep sequencing allows for detection of rare “needle-in-a-haystack” variants.
Dr. Razavi and his colleagues examined prospectively collected blood and tissues from 161 patients, 124 of whom had samples sufficient for concordance studies.
The samples were collected within 6 weeks of a de novo cancer diagnosis or evidence of disease progression, before the initiation of therapy.
Both cfDNA and genomic data from white blood cells (WBCs) of each patient were sequenced with the aforementioned 508-gene panel covering a broad range of known cancer variants and mutations.
Tumor tissues were sequenced with MSK-IMPACT, a 410 gene assay, with blinding of results in regard to plasma and WBC sequencing. Variants were classified as clonal or subclonal based on tumor sequencing in breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
As noted before, 89% of patients had at least one genetic variant detected in both the tumor and in plasma, including 97% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, 85% of those with NSCLC, and 84% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators identified 864 clonal or subclonal variants in tissue samples from all three of these cancers, and 627 of the variants also were found in plasma.
In addition, 76% of clinically actionable somatic mutations identified in tumors also were found in plasma, which suggests that the high-intensity sequencing technique may be able to identify tumor heterogeneity that is not always evident in single tumor biopsies, Dr. Razavi said.
‘A clear advance’
“The work by Dr. Razavi and colleagues is a clear advance in the field because it surveys for the first time a much broader panel of genes – 508 genes in this case – and it does it with much deeper sequencing, which means it can detect much rarer alterations,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The study “helps illuminate a path toward a day when we will be using circulating tumor DNA assays for early detection of cancer, and not just for selecting certain therapies,” he added.
“We’re a long way from utilizing liquid biopsy for detecting cancers; already though, we’re seeing some utility of circulating tumor DNA in the domain of identifying novel alterations as a means of segmentation clinical trials,” commented ASCO expert Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, from City of Hope in Duarte, Calif.
Dr. Heymach and Dr. Pal were not involved in the study, but were invited discussants at the briefing.
The study was funded in part by GRAIL. Dr. Razavi reported institutional research funding from the company. Multiple coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – An experimental liquid biopsy method plumbs the depths of the genome to detect a broad array of mutations in blood samples that closely correspond to variants in tumors.
The high-intensity method for detecting circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma detected at least one significant genetic variant in samples from 89% of patients with advanced breast, lung, and prostate cancers.
If validated in further studies, the technique could inform more accurate drug selection in patients with refractory disease and eventually may form the basis for plasma-based assays to detect early-stage cancers, said Pedram Razavi, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“This novel, high-intensity sequencing assay incorporates an unprecedented combination of depth and breadth of coverage compared to previous assays. High levels of concordance for variants between plasma and tissue provide strong evidence for high rates of tumor DNA detection in plasma,” he said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The technique also provides important insights into tumor biology, “including first exploration of mutational signatures in the plasma,” he added.
Deep scanning
The high-intensity sequencing method scans for 508 genes in a 2 million base-pair swath of genome, performing 60,000 repeat reads on each genome region to improve the assay’s sensitivity, and deep sequencing allows for detection of rare “needle-in-a-haystack” variants.
Dr. Razavi and his colleagues examined prospectively collected blood and tissues from 161 patients, 124 of whom had samples sufficient for concordance studies.
The samples were collected within 6 weeks of a de novo cancer diagnosis or evidence of disease progression, before the initiation of therapy.
Both cfDNA and genomic data from white blood cells (WBCs) of each patient were sequenced with the aforementioned 508-gene panel covering a broad range of known cancer variants and mutations.
Tumor tissues were sequenced with MSK-IMPACT, a 410 gene assay, with blinding of results in regard to plasma and WBC sequencing. Variants were classified as clonal or subclonal based on tumor sequencing in breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
As noted before, 89% of patients had at least one genetic variant detected in both the tumor and in plasma, including 97% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, 85% of those with NSCLC, and 84% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators identified 864 clonal or subclonal variants in tissue samples from all three of these cancers, and 627 of the variants also were found in plasma.
In addition, 76% of clinically actionable somatic mutations identified in tumors also were found in plasma, which suggests that the high-intensity sequencing technique may be able to identify tumor heterogeneity that is not always evident in single tumor biopsies, Dr. Razavi said.
‘A clear advance’
“The work by Dr. Razavi and colleagues is a clear advance in the field because it surveys for the first time a much broader panel of genes – 508 genes in this case – and it does it with much deeper sequencing, which means it can detect much rarer alterations,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The study “helps illuminate a path toward a day when we will be using circulating tumor DNA assays for early detection of cancer, and not just for selecting certain therapies,” he added.
“We’re a long way from utilizing liquid biopsy for detecting cancers; already though, we’re seeing some utility of circulating tumor DNA in the domain of identifying novel alterations as a means of segmentation clinical trials,” commented ASCO expert Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, from City of Hope in Duarte, Calif.
Dr. Heymach and Dr. Pal were not involved in the study, but were invited discussants at the briefing.
The study was funded in part by GRAIL. Dr. Razavi reported institutional research funding from the company. Multiple coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – An experimental liquid biopsy method plumbs the depths of the genome to detect a broad array of mutations in blood samples that closely correspond to variants in tumors.
The high-intensity method for detecting circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma detected at least one significant genetic variant in samples from 89% of patients with advanced breast, lung, and prostate cancers.
If validated in further studies, the technique could inform more accurate drug selection in patients with refractory disease and eventually may form the basis for plasma-based assays to detect early-stage cancers, said Pedram Razavi, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“This novel, high-intensity sequencing assay incorporates an unprecedented combination of depth and breadth of coverage compared to previous assays. High levels of concordance for variants between plasma and tissue provide strong evidence for high rates of tumor DNA detection in plasma,” he said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The technique also provides important insights into tumor biology, “including first exploration of mutational signatures in the plasma,” he added.
Deep scanning
The high-intensity sequencing method scans for 508 genes in a 2 million base-pair swath of genome, performing 60,000 repeat reads on each genome region to improve the assay’s sensitivity, and deep sequencing allows for detection of rare “needle-in-a-haystack” variants.
Dr. Razavi and his colleagues examined prospectively collected blood and tissues from 161 patients, 124 of whom had samples sufficient for concordance studies.
The samples were collected within 6 weeks of a de novo cancer diagnosis or evidence of disease progression, before the initiation of therapy.
Both cfDNA and genomic data from white blood cells (WBCs) of each patient were sequenced with the aforementioned 508-gene panel covering a broad range of known cancer variants and mutations.
Tumor tissues were sequenced with MSK-IMPACT, a 410 gene assay, with blinding of results in regard to plasma and WBC sequencing. Variants were classified as clonal or subclonal based on tumor sequencing in breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
As noted before, 89% of patients had at least one genetic variant detected in both the tumor and in plasma, including 97% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, 85% of those with NSCLC, and 84% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators identified 864 clonal or subclonal variants in tissue samples from all three of these cancers, and 627 of the variants also were found in plasma.
In addition, 76% of clinically actionable somatic mutations identified in tumors also were found in plasma, which suggests that the high-intensity sequencing technique may be able to identify tumor heterogeneity that is not always evident in single tumor biopsies, Dr. Razavi said.
‘A clear advance’
“The work by Dr. Razavi and colleagues is a clear advance in the field because it surveys for the first time a much broader panel of genes – 508 genes in this case – and it does it with much deeper sequencing, which means it can detect much rarer alterations,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The study “helps illuminate a path toward a day when we will be using circulating tumor DNA assays for early detection of cancer, and not just for selecting certain therapies,” he added.
“We’re a long way from utilizing liquid biopsy for detecting cancers; already though, we’re seeing some utility of circulating tumor DNA in the domain of identifying novel alterations as a means of segmentation clinical trials,” commented ASCO expert Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, from City of Hope in Duarte, Calif.
Dr. Heymach and Dr. Pal were not involved in the study, but were invited discussants at the briefing.
The study was funded in part by GRAIL. Dr. Razavi reported institutional research funding from the company. Multiple coauthors are employees of the company.
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point: High-intensity sequencing of plasma samples appears capable of detecting actionable tumor mutations in a large proportion of samples.
Major finding: In 89% of patients with advanced cancers, genetic variants were identified in both tumor samples and circulating free DNA testing.
Data source: Prospective study of tissue and plasma samples from 124 patients with non–small cell lung cancer or metastatic breast and prostate cancers.
Disclosures: The study was funded in part by GRAIL. Dr. Razavi reported institutional research funding from the company. Multiple coauthors are employees of the company.
VIDEO: Olaparib improves outlook in women with BRCA-related HER2-negative MBC
CHICAGO – Compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the oncologist’s choice, the PARP inhibitor olaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by 42% in women with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the OlympiAD trialists reported in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discussed findings of the randomized phase III trial, as well as strategies for building on the trial’s success and what the future holds for this class of agents in breast cancer.
Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; receives honoraria from AstraZeneca; and receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro. The trial was funded by AstraZeneca.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the oncologist’s choice, the PARP inhibitor olaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by 42% in women with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the OlympiAD trialists reported in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discussed findings of the randomized phase III trial, as well as strategies for building on the trial’s success and what the future holds for this class of agents in breast cancer.
Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; receives honoraria from AstraZeneca; and receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro. The trial was funded by AstraZeneca.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the oncologist’s choice, the PARP inhibitor olaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by 42% in women with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the OlympiAD trialists reported in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discussed findings of the randomized phase III trial, as well as strategies for building on the trial’s success and what the future holds for this class of agents in breast cancer.
Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; receives honoraria from AstraZeneca; and receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro. The trial was funded by AstraZeneca.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASCO 2017
VIDEO: TRK inhibitor shows 76% ORR across diverse cancers harboring TRK fusions
CHICAGO – An integrated analysis of three trials has shown that larotrectinib, an oral selective inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers harboring TRK fusions, netting an impressive 76% overall response rate.
Lead study author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed highlights of the analysis, larotrectinib’s regulatory status, and implications for TRK fusion testing in clinical care at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology. The study was funded by Loxo Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – An integrated analysis of three trials has shown that larotrectinib, an oral selective inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers harboring TRK fusions, netting an impressive 76% overall response rate.
Lead study author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed highlights of the analysis, larotrectinib’s regulatory status, and implications for TRK fusion testing in clinical care at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology. The study was funded by Loxo Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – An integrated analysis of three trials has shown that larotrectinib, an oral selective inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), has durable efficacy across diverse adult and pediatric cancers harboring TRK fusions, netting an impressive 76% overall response rate.
Lead study author David Hyman, MD, chief of early drug development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed highlights of the analysis, larotrectinib’s regulatory status, and implications for TRK fusion testing in clinical care at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Hyman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, and CytomX Therapeutics, and that he receives research funding from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology. The study was funded by Loxo Oncology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASCO 2017
VIDEO: Helping cancer patients cope with psychological side effects
CHICAGO – Oncologists are highly skilled at minimizing side effects associated with toxic but curative therapies, but are less adept at helping patients cope with the distress, anxiety, fear, and other emotions associated with cancer.
Three studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology detail randomized, controlled trials of psychological interventions aimed at helping patients cope with a new cancer diagnosis, reduce fears of a recurrence, and come to grips with the realities of advanced disease, including fears of death or disability.
Don S. Dizon, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, discusses the social and financial barriers that cancer patients face when they experience distress, and the difficulties that providers face with limited time and financial resources to help patients cope in this video interview.
Dr. Dizon reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Oncologists are highly skilled at minimizing side effects associated with toxic but curative therapies, but are less adept at helping patients cope with the distress, anxiety, fear, and other emotions associated with cancer.
Three studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology detail randomized, controlled trials of psychological interventions aimed at helping patients cope with a new cancer diagnosis, reduce fears of a recurrence, and come to grips with the realities of advanced disease, including fears of death or disability.
Don S. Dizon, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, discusses the social and financial barriers that cancer patients face when they experience distress, and the difficulties that providers face with limited time and financial resources to help patients cope in this video interview.
Dr. Dizon reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Oncologists are highly skilled at minimizing side effects associated with toxic but curative therapies, but are less adept at helping patients cope with the distress, anxiety, fear, and other emotions associated with cancer.
Three studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology detail randomized, controlled trials of psychological interventions aimed at helping patients cope with a new cancer diagnosis, reduce fears of a recurrence, and come to grips with the realities of advanced disease, including fears of death or disability.
Don S. Dizon, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, discusses the social and financial barriers that cancer patients face when they experience distress, and the difficulties that providers face with limited time and financial resources to help patients cope in this video interview.
Dr. Dizon reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASCO 2017
FDA advisory committee supports neratinib approval
of adults with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who received prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
Members voting during the May 24 meeting expressed concern about the broadness of the indication proposed by the drug’s maker, Puma Biotechnology, but the majority said the risk-benefit profile of the drug is sufficient to support approval, particularly given the unmet need for such an agent. Those voting against approval argued that more data are needed to identify subpopulations of patients who would be most likely to benefit from treatment in order to narrow the indication.
“There are some unknowns that concern me. ... I don’t think I would treat as broadly as the indication describes,” he said, adding that it would be very difficult to decide which patients to treat, and it would be nice to have more data that provide predictive biomarkers to help determine who should be treated. “But at the end of the day I think it’s useful to have this as an option for treating patients.”
Lori M. Minasian, MD, also a temporary voting member from the National Institutes of Health, agreed.
“I think the option should be available,” she said, adding that the analysis was thorough. However, she, too, questioned the proposed indication.
“I remain concerned that the indication is far too broad, and ... I think we need greater understanding of which subsets of patients would be most responsive to this therapy,” she said.
Heidi D. Klepin, MD, of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. said she voted “yes” for similar reasons, despite concerns about the lack of data to help narrow the indication.
“I particularly felt it was important to support this indication because I think this is an unmet need, and I think the primary outcome is an important and relevant outcome for our patients, even though what we’re seeing effect-wise may be modest,” she said.
Patricia A. Spears, a breast cancer survivor and patient representative from Raleigh, N.C., however, voted against approval.
“I think it is important to get drugs out to patients, and I think this will benefit a certain subset of patients. I’m just not sure we know which ones yet. What we do is tend to put a lot of patients at risk to benefit just a few. We do that a lot,” she said.
She expressed concern that the treatment would be “tacked on to the end of trastuzumab” in too many cases without concern for whether the patient is likely to benefit.
Another member who voted no, Courtney J. Preusse, who was a consumer representative on the committee, said she struggled with the decision but ultimately decided that the benefit this drug adds beyond what already exists is “just not compelling.”
Neratinib is a kinase inhibitor that irreversibly binds to epidermal growth factor receptors, HER2, and HER4, and results of the phase III ExteNET trial presented to the committee by representatives of the applicant showed a statistically significant invasive disease-free survival benefit with treatment.
The invasive disease-free survival at 2 years in 1,420 patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer after adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab who were randomized to receive neratinib was 94.2%, compared with 91.9% in 1,420 who received placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.66). Follow-up data from patients who reconsented to participate showed similar outcomes from 2 to 5 years post-randomization.
An exploratory subgroup analysis suggested a possible difference in the magnitude of benefit based on hormone receptor status, with a 51% reduction in recurrence risk among HR-positive patients, compared with a 7% reduction in HR-negative patients (hazard ratios, 0.49 and 0.93, respectively).
Some concern was raised regarding multiple amendments to the protocol during the study, but committee members who spoke about this expressed satisfaction with the way these issues were handled in terms of sensitivity analysis.
As for safety, diarrhea was the most frequently reported adverse reaction, occurring in 95% of treated patients. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 40% of treated patients. Additional data were presented showing that antidiarrheal prophylaxis was effective. Several patients who spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting–some of whom had travel expenses paid by the applicant, said they either had no problem with diarrhea or that it was manageable. Nearly all of those who spoke during the open public hearing, including patients and family members, shared emotional stories about their personal battles with breast cancer and urged the committee to support approval of neratinib to expand the options available to patients.
The FDA will now consider the new drug application for neratinib, and although it is not bound by the advisory committee’s recommendation, it usually follows such recommendations.
The advisory committee members reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
of adults with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who received prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
Members voting during the May 24 meeting expressed concern about the broadness of the indication proposed by the drug’s maker, Puma Biotechnology, but the majority said the risk-benefit profile of the drug is sufficient to support approval, particularly given the unmet need for such an agent. Those voting against approval argued that more data are needed to identify subpopulations of patients who would be most likely to benefit from treatment in order to narrow the indication.
“There are some unknowns that concern me. ... I don’t think I would treat as broadly as the indication describes,” he said, adding that it would be very difficult to decide which patients to treat, and it would be nice to have more data that provide predictive biomarkers to help determine who should be treated. “But at the end of the day I think it’s useful to have this as an option for treating patients.”
Lori M. Minasian, MD, also a temporary voting member from the National Institutes of Health, agreed.
“I think the option should be available,” she said, adding that the analysis was thorough. However, she, too, questioned the proposed indication.
“I remain concerned that the indication is far too broad, and ... I think we need greater understanding of which subsets of patients would be most responsive to this therapy,” she said.
Heidi D. Klepin, MD, of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. said she voted “yes” for similar reasons, despite concerns about the lack of data to help narrow the indication.
“I particularly felt it was important to support this indication because I think this is an unmet need, and I think the primary outcome is an important and relevant outcome for our patients, even though what we’re seeing effect-wise may be modest,” she said.
Patricia A. Spears, a breast cancer survivor and patient representative from Raleigh, N.C., however, voted against approval.
“I think it is important to get drugs out to patients, and I think this will benefit a certain subset of patients. I’m just not sure we know which ones yet. What we do is tend to put a lot of patients at risk to benefit just a few. We do that a lot,” she said.
She expressed concern that the treatment would be “tacked on to the end of trastuzumab” in too many cases without concern for whether the patient is likely to benefit.
Another member who voted no, Courtney J. Preusse, who was a consumer representative on the committee, said she struggled with the decision but ultimately decided that the benefit this drug adds beyond what already exists is “just not compelling.”
Neratinib is a kinase inhibitor that irreversibly binds to epidermal growth factor receptors, HER2, and HER4, and results of the phase III ExteNET trial presented to the committee by representatives of the applicant showed a statistically significant invasive disease-free survival benefit with treatment.
The invasive disease-free survival at 2 years in 1,420 patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer after adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab who were randomized to receive neratinib was 94.2%, compared with 91.9% in 1,420 who received placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.66). Follow-up data from patients who reconsented to participate showed similar outcomes from 2 to 5 years post-randomization.
An exploratory subgroup analysis suggested a possible difference in the magnitude of benefit based on hormone receptor status, with a 51% reduction in recurrence risk among HR-positive patients, compared with a 7% reduction in HR-negative patients (hazard ratios, 0.49 and 0.93, respectively).
Some concern was raised regarding multiple amendments to the protocol during the study, but committee members who spoke about this expressed satisfaction with the way these issues were handled in terms of sensitivity analysis.
As for safety, diarrhea was the most frequently reported adverse reaction, occurring in 95% of treated patients. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 40% of treated patients. Additional data were presented showing that antidiarrheal prophylaxis was effective. Several patients who spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting–some of whom had travel expenses paid by the applicant, said they either had no problem with diarrhea or that it was manageable. Nearly all of those who spoke during the open public hearing, including patients and family members, shared emotional stories about their personal battles with breast cancer and urged the committee to support approval of neratinib to expand the options available to patients.
The FDA will now consider the new drug application for neratinib, and although it is not bound by the advisory committee’s recommendation, it usually follows such recommendations.
The advisory committee members reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
of adults with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who received prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
Members voting during the May 24 meeting expressed concern about the broadness of the indication proposed by the drug’s maker, Puma Biotechnology, but the majority said the risk-benefit profile of the drug is sufficient to support approval, particularly given the unmet need for such an agent. Those voting against approval argued that more data are needed to identify subpopulations of patients who would be most likely to benefit from treatment in order to narrow the indication.
“There are some unknowns that concern me. ... I don’t think I would treat as broadly as the indication describes,” he said, adding that it would be very difficult to decide which patients to treat, and it would be nice to have more data that provide predictive biomarkers to help determine who should be treated. “But at the end of the day I think it’s useful to have this as an option for treating patients.”
Lori M. Minasian, MD, also a temporary voting member from the National Institutes of Health, agreed.
“I think the option should be available,” she said, adding that the analysis was thorough. However, she, too, questioned the proposed indication.
“I remain concerned that the indication is far too broad, and ... I think we need greater understanding of which subsets of patients would be most responsive to this therapy,” she said.
Heidi D. Klepin, MD, of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. said she voted “yes” for similar reasons, despite concerns about the lack of data to help narrow the indication.
“I particularly felt it was important to support this indication because I think this is an unmet need, and I think the primary outcome is an important and relevant outcome for our patients, even though what we’re seeing effect-wise may be modest,” she said.
Patricia A. Spears, a breast cancer survivor and patient representative from Raleigh, N.C., however, voted against approval.
“I think it is important to get drugs out to patients, and I think this will benefit a certain subset of patients. I’m just not sure we know which ones yet. What we do is tend to put a lot of patients at risk to benefit just a few. We do that a lot,” she said.
She expressed concern that the treatment would be “tacked on to the end of trastuzumab” in too many cases without concern for whether the patient is likely to benefit.
Another member who voted no, Courtney J. Preusse, who was a consumer representative on the committee, said she struggled with the decision but ultimately decided that the benefit this drug adds beyond what already exists is “just not compelling.”
Neratinib is a kinase inhibitor that irreversibly binds to epidermal growth factor receptors, HER2, and HER4, and results of the phase III ExteNET trial presented to the committee by representatives of the applicant showed a statistically significant invasive disease-free survival benefit with treatment.
The invasive disease-free survival at 2 years in 1,420 patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer after adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab who were randomized to receive neratinib was 94.2%, compared with 91.9% in 1,420 who received placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.66). Follow-up data from patients who reconsented to participate showed similar outcomes from 2 to 5 years post-randomization.
An exploratory subgroup analysis suggested a possible difference in the magnitude of benefit based on hormone receptor status, with a 51% reduction in recurrence risk among HR-positive patients, compared with a 7% reduction in HR-negative patients (hazard ratios, 0.49 and 0.93, respectively).
Some concern was raised regarding multiple amendments to the protocol during the study, but committee members who spoke about this expressed satisfaction with the way these issues were handled in terms of sensitivity analysis.
As for safety, diarrhea was the most frequently reported adverse reaction, occurring in 95% of treated patients. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 40% of treated patients. Additional data were presented showing that antidiarrheal prophylaxis was effective. Several patients who spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting–some of whom had travel expenses paid by the applicant, said they either had no problem with diarrhea or that it was manageable. Nearly all of those who spoke during the open public hearing, including patients and family members, shared emotional stories about their personal battles with breast cancer and urged the committee to support approval of neratinib to expand the options available to patients.
The FDA will now consider the new drug application for neratinib, and although it is not bound by the advisory committee’s recommendation, it usually follows such recommendations.
The advisory committee members reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
