Cancer

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

A pair of new studies offers more evidence for the value of vegetables and the risk of red meat on the cancer prevention front. Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.

The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”

Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.

Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.

The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).

Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).

According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.

Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.

For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.

The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.

After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).

“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.

There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.

The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”

As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.

The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.

A pair of new studies offers more evidence for the value of vegetables and the risk of red meat on the cancer prevention front. Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.

The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”

Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.

Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.

The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).

Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).

According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.

Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.

For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.

The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.

After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).

“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.

There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.

The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”

As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.

The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.

A pair of new studies offers more evidence for the value of vegetables and the risk of red meat on the cancer prevention front. Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.

The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”

Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.

Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.

The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).

Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).

According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.

Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.

For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.

The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.

After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).

“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.

There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.

The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”

As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.

The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.

In patients with B-cell deficiencies, CoVac-1, a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine currently in clinical trials in Germany, induced T-cell immune responses in a large proportion of patients, according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.

In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).

“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”

B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.

In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.

While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.

CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.

The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.

“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”

Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.

A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.

“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.

“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.

Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.

Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.

In patients with B-cell deficiencies, CoVac-1, a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine currently in clinical trials in Germany, induced T-cell immune responses in a large proportion of patients, according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.

In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).

“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”

B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.

In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.

While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.

CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.

The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.

“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”

Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.

A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.

“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.

“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.

Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.

Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.

In patients with B-cell deficiencies, CoVac-1, a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine currently in clinical trials in Germany, induced T-cell immune responses in a large proportion of patients, according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.

In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).

“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”

B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.

In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.

While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.

CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.

The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.

“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”

Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.

A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.

“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.

“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.

Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.

Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.

New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.

The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).

“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.

As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.

“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”

The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.

For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.

Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).

“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”

The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.