Cancer

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is indisputable that patients with newly diagnosed advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway may benefit from targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) directed against EGFR.

What’s less clear is whether monotherapy with an EGFR TKI or combination therapy with a TKI and chemotherapy, immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies or other targeted agents is the preferred frontline strategy.

NSCLC guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, for example, recommend that patients with EFGR mutations such as exon 19 deletion, discovered prior to first-line systemic therapy, should preferably received osimertinib (Tagrisso) or another TKI, such as erlotinib (Tarceva), afatinib (Gilotrif), gefitinib (Iressa) or dacomitinib (Vizimpro), or erlotinib with a VEGF inhibitor. For patients with EGFR mutations identified during first-line systemic therapy, NCCN recommends complete systemic therapy or interrupting it, followed by osimertinib as the preferred agent, or another TKI with or without a VEGF inhibitors.

Similarly, guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health recommend osimertinib monotherapy as a preferred first-line option for patients with L858R/exon 19 deletion EGFR mutations. Alternatives for patients for whom osimertinib is not available include gefitinib plus platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy with maintenance pemetrexed, monotherapy with dacomitinib, or other targeted agents with or without VEGF inhibitors.

Combination or go it alone?

The guidelines are largely mute on the question of chemotherapy in this population, primarily because they have not caught up to clinical trial evidence, said Paul Wheatley-Price, MBChB, FRCP, MD, from the University of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“There is recent data that looks quite promising on combining EGFR inhibitors with either chemotherapy or antiangiogenic drugs, but it’s too soon, I think, and while the trials are promising, there are still too many question marks over it to make it into the guidelines,” he said in an interview.

The question of frontline combinations vs. monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC was the subject of a recent “controversies in thoracic oncology” feature in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, with Dr. Wheatley-Price and University of Ottawa colleague Sara Moore, MD, FRCPC, arguing that combining EGFR TKIs with either cytotoxic chemotherapy or antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor has been shown consistently to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and in some cases overall survival (OS).

“There is a consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line therapy, highlighting the importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting to ensure patients will be exposed to multiple available therapies that may prolong survival. Chemotherapy-based combinations lead to improved response rates which may be especially helpful in patients with a significant burden of disease,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, compared with patients with wild-type EGFR, patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC had a doubling of response rates to chemotherapy with a platinum-based doublet in the IPASS trial, suggesting that EGFR-mutated tumors may be more chemosensitive.
 

Promising trials, old drug

“Chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs may have a synergistic effect through combined reduction in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–mediated angiogenesis, and with EGFR TKIs counteracting chemotherapy-induced up-regulation of downstream EGFR signaling,” they wrote.

The authors cited two studies, one from Japan, and one from India, both of which showed significant improvements in response rates, PFS, and OS with the combination of gefitinib plus carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with pemetrexed maintenance vs. carboplatin alone,

“Now of course we don’t use gefitinib as our first-line treatment. In Canada and the United States, we use osimertinib, so certainly the chemotherapy/TKI combination, while it looks quite promising, was compared to an old control arm,” Dr. Wheatley-Price said.

He noted that the phase 3 FLAURA2 trial, currently underway, will address the question of whether adding osimertinib to a chemotherapy doublet with pemetrexed plus either carboplatin or cisplatin can improve PFS in patients with EGFR-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, compared with osimertinib alone.

The authors acknowledged that chemotherapy adds toxicities, compared with the use of TKI monotherapy, but added that, “even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

VEGF plus EGFR

Adding a VEGF-targeted monoclonal antibody or TKI to and EGFR TKI has shown consistent PFS benefits in the NEJ026, ARTEMIS, RELAY, and ACTIVE trials, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price noted.

“In all four trials, resistance testing at the time of progression revealed similar rates of T790M mutation in both arms, highlighting the potential role of optimizing the sequence of therapy with use of second-line osimertinib among those with a T790M resistance mutation,” they wrote.

All four trials also showed higher rates of adverse events in the combination arms, but most, except for hypertension, were low grade, and in the RELAY trial the added toxicities did not significantly affect patient quality of life, they said.
 

Monotherapy advocated

Although in agreement that the combination of gefitinib and chemotherapy has both PFS and OS benefits compared with monotherapy alone, “these combinations are not applicable to real-life practice given their use of first-generation EGFR TKIs rather than third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib,” wrote Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD, FRCPC from Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the University of Montreal, and Frances A. Shepherd, MD, FRCPC from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, in an article touting EGFR monotherapy.

They stated that until the results of FLAURA2 are available “osimertinib alone remains the current standard first-line therapy in metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC.”

“The addition of an antiangiogenic agent to an EGFR TKI mildly prolongs PFS; however, it does not yet translate into survival benefit. Not only does it add more toxicity to patients, but it also adds cost, which is far from negligible,” they wrote.

Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd also noted that two phase 2 trials comparing afatinib with the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab (Erbitux) showed no PFS or OS benefits in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC and were terminated for lack of efficacy.

In addition, clinical trials of combinations of EGFR TKIs with immune checkpoint inhibitors ­or MET inhibitors have failed to date to demonstrate survival benefits, the authors said.

“No trials have yet revealed PFS or OS benefit with osimertinib combinations. Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system. Combinations could potentially also worsen quality of life given their heightened toxicity profiles. Therefore, single-agent EGFR TKI, such as osimertinib, remains for now the standard of care in the first-line setting for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC,” they concluded.

No funding sources for the articles were reported. All authors declared no conflicts of interest to disclose.

It is indisputable that patients with newly diagnosed advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway may benefit from targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) directed against EGFR.

What’s less clear is whether monotherapy with an EGFR TKI or combination therapy with a TKI and chemotherapy, immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies or other targeted agents is the preferred frontline strategy.

NSCLC guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, for example, recommend that patients with EFGR mutations such as exon 19 deletion, discovered prior to first-line systemic therapy, should preferably received osimertinib (Tagrisso) or another TKI, such as erlotinib (Tarceva), afatinib (Gilotrif), gefitinib (Iressa) or dacomitinib (Vizimpro), or erlotinib with a VEGF inhibitor. For patients with EGFR mutations identified during first-line systemic therapy, NCCN recommends complete systemic therapy or interrupting it, followed by osimertinib as the preferred agent, or another TKI with or without a VEGF inhibitors.

Similarly, guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health recommend osimertinib monotherapy as a preferred first-line option for patients with L858R/exon 19 deletion EGFR mutations. Alternatives for patients for whom osimertinib is not available include gefitinib plus platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy with maintenance pemetrexed, monotherapy with dacomitinib, or other targeted agents with or without VEGF inhibitors.

Combination or go it alone?

The guidelines are largely mute on the question of chemotherapy in this population, primarily because they have not caught up to clinical trial evidence, said Paul Wheatley-Price, MBChB, FRCP, MD, from the University of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“There is recent data that looks quite promising on combining EGFR inhibitors with either chemotherapy or antiangiogenic drugs, but it’s too soon, I think, and while the trials are promising, there are still too many question marks over it to make it into the guidelines,” he said in an interview.

The question of frontline combinations vs. monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC was the subject of a recent “controversies in thoracic oncology” feature in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, with Dr. Wheatley-Price and University of Ottawa colleague Sara Moore, MD, FRCPC, arguing that combining EGFR TKIs with either cytotoxic chemotherapy or antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor has been shown consistently to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and in some cases overall survival (OS).

“There is a consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line therapy, highlighting the importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting to ensure patients will be exposed to multiple available therapies that may prolong survival. Chemotherapy-based combinations lead to improved response rates which may be especially helpful in patients with a significant burden of disease,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, compared with patients with wild-type EGFR, patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC had a doubling of response rates to chemotherapy with a platinum-based doublet in the IPASS trial, suggesting that EGFR-mutated tumors may be more chemosensitive.
 

Promising trials, old drug

“Chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs may have a synergistic effect through combined reduction in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–mediated angiogenesis, and with EGFR TKIs counteracting chemotherapy-induced up-regulation of downstream EGFR signaling,” they wrote.

The authors cited two studies, one from Japan, and one from India, both of which showed significant improvements in response rates, PFS, and OS with the combination of gefitinib plus carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with pemetrexed maintenance vs. carboplatin alone,

“Now of course we don’t use gefitinib as our first-line treatment. In Canada and the United States, we use osimertinib, so certainly the chemotherapy/TKI combination, while it looks quite promising, was compared to an old control arm,” Dr. Wheatley-Price said.

He noted that the phase 3 FLAURA2 trial, currently underway, will address the question of whether adding osimertinib to a chemotherapy doublet with pemetrexed plus either carboplatin or cisplatin can improve PFS in patients with EGFR-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, compared with osimertinib alone.

The authors acknowledged that chemotherapy adds toxicities, compared with the use of TKI monotherapy, but added that, “even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

VEGF plus EGFR

Adding a VEGF-targeted monoclonal antibody or TKI to and EGFR TKI has shown consistent PFS benefits in the NEJ026, ARTEMIS, RELAY, and ACTIVE trials, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price noted.

“In all four trials, resistance testing at the time of progression revealed similar rates of T790M mutation in both arms, highlighting the potential role of optimizing the sequence of therapy with use of second-line osimertinib among those with a T790M resistance mutation,” they wrote.

All four trials also showed higher rates of adverse events in the combination arms, but most, except for hypertension, were low grade, and in the RELAY trial the added toxicities did not significantly affect patient quality of life, they said.
 

Monotherapy advocated

Although in agreement that the combination of gefitinib and chemotherapy has both PFS and OS benefits compared with monotherapy alone, “these combinations are not applicable to real-life practice given their use of first-generation EGFR TKIs rather than third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib,” wrote Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD, FRCPC from Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the University of Montreal, and Frances A. Shepherd, MD, FRCPC from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, in an article touting EGFR monotherapy.

They stated that until the results of FLAURA2 are available “osimertinib alone remains the current standard first-line therapy in metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC.”

“The addition of an antiangiogenic agent to an EGFR TKI mildly prolongs PFS; however, it does not yet translate into survival benefit. Not only does it add more toxicity to patients, but it also adds cost, which is far from negligible,” they wrote.

Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd also noted that two phase 2 trials comparing afatinib with the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab (Erbitux) showed no PFS or OS benefits in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC and were terminated for lack of efficacy.

In addition, clinical trials of combinations of EGFR TKIs with immune checkpoint inhibitors ­or MET inhibitors have failed to date to demonstrate survival benefits, the authors said.

“No trials have yet revealed PFS or OS benefit with osimertinib combinations. Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system. Combinations could potentially also worsen quality of life given their heightened toxicity profiles. Therefore, single-agent EGFR TKI, such as osimertinib, remains for now the standard of care in the first-line setting for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC,” they concluded.

No funding sources for the articles were reported. All authors declared no conflicts of interest to disclose.

It is indisputable that patients with newly diagnosed advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway may benefit from targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) directed against EGFR.

What’s less clear is whether monotherapy with an EGFR TKI or combination therapy with a TKI and chemotherapy, immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies or other targeted agents is the preferred frontline strategy.

NSCLC guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, for example, recommend that patients with EFGR mutations such as exon 19 deletion, discovered prior to first-line systemic therapy, should preferably received osimertinib (Tagrisso) or another TKI, such as erlotinib (Tarceva), afatinib (Gilotrif), gefitinib (Iressa) or dacomitinib (Vizimpro), or erlotinib with a VEGF inhibitor. For patients with EGFR mutations identified during first-line systemic therapy, NCCN recommends complete systemic therapy or interrupting it, followed by osimertinib as the preferred agent, or another TKI with or without a VEGF inhibitors.

Similarly, guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health recommend osimertinib monotherapy as a preferred first-line option for patients with L858R/exon 19 deletion EGFR mutations. Alternatives for patients for whom osimertinib is not available include gefitinib plus platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy with maintenance pemetrexed, monotherapy with dacomitinib, or other targeted agents with or without VEGF inhibitors.

Combination or go it alone?

The guidelines are largely mute on the question of chemotherapy in this population, primarily because they have not caught up to clinical trial evidence, said Paul Wheatley-Price, MBChB, FRCP, MD, from the University of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“There is recent data that looks quite promising on combining EGFR inhibitors with either chemotherapy or antiangiogenic drugs, but it’s too soon, I think, and while the trials are promising, there are still too many question marks over it to make it into the guidelines,” he said in an interview.

The question of frontline combinations vs. monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC was the subject of a recent “controversies in thoracic oncology” feature in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, with Dr. Wheatley-Price and University of Ottawa colleague Sara Moore, MD, FRCPC, arguing that combining EGFR TKIs with either cytotoxic chemotherapy or antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor has been shown consistently to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and in some cases overall survival (OS).

“There is a consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line therapy, highlighting the importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting to ensure patients will be exposed to multiple available therapies that may prolong survival. Chemotherapy-based combinations lead to improved response rates which may be especially helpful in patients with a significant burden of disease,” they wrote.

The authors noted that, compared with patients with wild-type EGFR, patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC had a doubling of response rates to chemotherapy with a platinum-based doublet in the IPASS trial, suggesting that EGFR-mutated tumors may be more chemosensitive.
 

Promising trials, old drug

“Chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs may have a synergistic effect through combined reduction in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–mediated angiogenesis, and with EGFR TKIs counteracting chemotherapy-induced up-regulation of downstream EGFR signaling,” they wrote.

The authors cited two studies, one from Japan, and one from India, both of which showed significant improvements in response rates, PFS, and OS with the combination of gefitinib plus carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with pemetrexed maintenance vs. carboplatin alone,

“Now of course we don’t use gefitinib as our first-line treatment. In Canada and the United States, we use osimertinib, so certainly the chemotherapy/TKI combination, while it looks quite promising, was compared to an old control arm,” Dr. Wheatley-Price said.

He noted that the phase 3 FLAURA2 trial, currently underway, will address the question of whether adding osimertinib to a chemotherapy doublet with pemetrexed plus either carboplatin or cisplatin can improve PFS in patients with EGFR-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, compared with osimertinib alone.

The authors acknowledged that chemotherapy adds toxicities, compared with the use of TKI monotherapy, but added that, “even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

VEGF plus EGFR

Adding a VEGF-targeted monoclonal antibody or TKI to and EGFR TKI has shown consistent PFS benefits in the NEJ026, ARTEMIS, RELAY, and ACTIVE trials, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price noted.

“In all four trials, resistance testing at the time of progression revealed similar rates of T790M mutation in both arms, highlighting the potential role of optimizing the sequence of therapy with use of second-line osimertinib among those with a T790M resistance mutation,” they wrote.

All four trials also showed higher rates of adverse events in the combination arms, but most, except for hypertension, were low grade, and in the RELAY trial the added toxicities did not significantly affect patient quality of life, they said.
 

Monotherapy advocated

Although in agreement that the combination of gefitinib and chemotherapy has both PFS and OS benefits compared with monotherapy alone, “these combinations are not applicable to real-life practice given their use of first-generation EGFR TKIs rather than third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib,” wrote Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD, FRCPC from Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the University of Montreal, and Frances A. Shepherd, MD, FRCPC from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, in an article touting EGFR monotherapy.

They stated that until the results of FLAURA2 are available “osimertinib alone remains the current standard first-line therapy in metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC.”

“The addition of an antiangiogenic agent to an EGFR TKI mildly prolongs PFS; however, it does not yet translate into survival benefit. Not only does it add more toxicity to patients, but it also adds cost, which is far from negligible,” they wrote.

Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd also noted that two phase 2 trials comparing afatinib with the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab (Erbitux) showed no PFS or OS benefits in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC and were terminated for lack of efficacy.

In addition, clinical trials of combinations of EGFR TKIs with immune checkpoint inhibitors ­or MET inhibitors have failed to date to demonstrate survival benefits, the authors said.

“No trials have yet revealed PFS or OS benefit with osimertinib combinations. Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system. Combinations could potentially also worsen quality of life given their heightened toxicity profiles. Therefore, single-agent EGFR TKI, such as osimertinib, remains for now the standard of care in the first-line setting for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC,” they concluded.

No funding sources for the articles were reported. All authors declared no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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