User login
‘Major advance’: Sotorasib benefit persists in KRAS+ NSCLC
NEW ORLEANS – with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).
The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.
That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.
“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.”
In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.
Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.
“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”
New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”
At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.
“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.
“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
Tarnished triumph
As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
Long follow-up
The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.
The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.
Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.
At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.
Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.
Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.
In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.
The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.
Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).
The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.
That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.
“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.”
In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.
Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.
“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”
New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”
At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.
“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.
“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
Tarnished triumph
As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
Long follow-up
The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.
The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.
Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.
At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.
Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.
Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.
In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.
The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.
Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).
The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.
That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.
“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.”
In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.
Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.
“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”
New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”
At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.
“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.
“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
Tarnished triumph
As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
Long follow-up
The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.
The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.
Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.
At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.
Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.
Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.
In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.
The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.
Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AACR 2022
Which breast cancer surgery leads to better quality of life?
Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.
A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.
However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.
“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.
“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.
A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).
The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.
The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.
Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).
However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.
They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”
The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.
In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.
A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.
However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.
“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.
“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.
A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).
The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.
The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.
Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).
However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.
They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”
The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.
In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.
A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.
However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.
“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.
“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.
A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).
The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.
The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.
Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).
However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.
They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”
The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.
In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
International group identifies actions to improve lung cancer survival
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
FROM ELCC 2022
Cancer diet studies: Veggies get another rave, while red meat’s busted again
Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.
The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”
Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.
Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.
The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).
Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).
According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.
Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.
For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.
The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.
After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).
“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.
There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.
The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”
As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.
The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.
Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.
The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”
Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.
Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.
The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).
Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).
According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.
Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.
For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.
The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.
After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).
“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.
There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.
The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”
As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.
The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.
Researchers report that high consumption of vegetables – especially lettuce, legumes, and cruciferous varieties – appears to lower the risk of liver cancer/liver disease. A separate team suggests that high consumption of red meat, organ meats, and processed meats boosts the risk of gastric cancer.
The findings of the latter study “reinforce the idea that avoidance of red meat and processed meat is probably good beyond [the prevention of] colorectal cancer,” said corresponding author and epidemiologist Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook University Cancer Center, New York, in an interview. “The possible carcinogenic effect may extend beyond the colon.”
Both studies were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
For the red meat study, researchers examined statistics from the Golestan cohort study, which is prospectively tracking 50,045 people aged 40-75 from northeastern Iran. The study focuses on esophageal cancer due to the region’s high rate of the disease.
Red meat consumption is fairly rare in the region, where residents typically prefer chicken, said study lead author Giulia Collatuzzo, MD, a resident physician in occupational medicine at the University of Bologna, Italy, in an interview. On average, participants reported eating 18.4 grams daily of red meat and 72.1 grams daily of white meat.
The researchers tracked study participants for a median 12-year follow-up, during which 369 developed esophageal cancer and 368 developed gastric cancer. Red meat was only linked to more esophageal cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18, for each quintile increase in consumption).
Overall red meat consumption (including red meat, organ meat, and processed meat) was linked to higher rates of gastric cancer (HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.17) for each quartile increase in consumption, as was consumption of the red meat subtype alone (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18).
According to Dr. Collatuzzo, the findings suggest that those in the highest quartile of overall red meat consumption may have around a 25% increase in risk, compared with the lowest quartile.
Overall, she said, the study findings aren’t surprising. The lack of a connection between red meat consumption and esophageal cancer may be due to the fact that meat only temporarily transits through the esophagus, she said.
For the liver cancer/liver disease study, researchers examined the medical records of 470,653 subjects in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. They were recruited in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. Over a median follow-up of 15.5 years, 899 developed liver cancer, and 934 died of chronic liver disease.
The median intakes of vegetables in quintile 5 (highest) and quintile 1 (lowest) were 3.7 cups daily and 1.0 cups daily, respectively, said study lead author Long-Gang Zhao, MS, a graduate student at Harvard University.
After adjusting for possible cofounders, those in the highest quintile of vegetable consumption were a third less likely to develop liver cancer, compared with the lowest quintile (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.53-0.82, P < 0.01). Several types of vegetables appeared to be the strongest cancer fighters: cruciferous (broccoli, cauliflower), lettuce, legumes, and carrots. These kinds of vegetables were also linked to lower rates of chronic liver disease mortality (all P < 0.01), as was total vegetable intake for the top quintile versus the lowest quintile (HR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49-0.74, P = < 0.01).
“A one-cup increase (8 oz or 225 g) in vegetable intake was associated with about 20% decreased risk of liver cancer incidence and chronic liver mortality,” Zhao said.
There was no statistically significant link between fruit consumption and liver cancer or chronic liver disease mortality.
The findings provide more insight into diet and liver disease, Zhao said. “Chronic liver disease, which predisposes to liver cancer, is the tenth cause of death worldwide, causing two million deaths each year. It shares some etiological processes with liver cancer. Therefore, examining both chronic liver disease mortality and liver cancer incidence in our study may provide a more general picture for the prevention of liver diseases.”
As for limitations, both studies are based on self-reports about food consumption, which can be unreliable, and the subjects in the fruit/vegetable analysis were mainly of European origin.
The authors of both studies report no relevant disclosures. No funding is reported for either study.
FROM AACR 2022
Novel COVID-19 vaccine could fill the void for patients with blood cancers
according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.
In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).
“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”
B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.
In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.
While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.
CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.
The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.
“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”
Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.
A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.
“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.
“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.
Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.
Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.
according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.
In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).
“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”
B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.
In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.
While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.
CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.
The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.
“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”
Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.
A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.
“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.
“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.
Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.
Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.
according to study results presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The phase 1/2 trial included 54 patients with a B-cell deficiency (mean age, 63 years; 28% female): 4 had congenital B-cell deficiency and 50 had a blood cancer (lymphocytic leukemia or lymphoma). T-cell immune responses were observed in 86% of patients 28 days after vaccination with a single CoVac-1 dose. The potency of CoVac-1–induced T-cell responses exceeded those seen typically with B cell–deficient patient responses after mRNA vaccine treatment and were comparable with those seen among nonimmunocompromised COVID-19 patients.
In the majority of individuals, currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce a robust immune response, however, their efficacy, has been shown to be decreased among individuals who are immunocompromised. Patients treated for hematologic cancers, in particular, receive treatment regimens that damage healthy immune cells, particularly B cells, said Juliane Walz, MD, the study’s senior author and professor of medicine at University Hospital Tübingen (Germany).
“In the clinic, we see many cancer patients who do not mount sufficient humoral immune responses after vaccination with available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines,” Dr. Walz said. “These patients are at a high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.”
B-cell deficiency, she stated, can be compensated for by enhancing T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, which can then combat infections in the absence of neutralizing antibodies.
In a prior study of CoVac-1 among 36 adults without immune deficiency, the vaccine elicited T-cell responses that were still robust 3 months post vaccination, and that included responses against omicron and other key SARS-CoV-2 variants.
While mRNA-based or adenoviral vector-based vaccines are limited to the spike protein and are thus prone to loss of activity because of viral mutations, CoVac-1–induced T-cell immunity is far more intense and broader, Dr. Walz said.
CoVac-1 is a peptide vaccine that is injected directly rather than being encoded via mRNA and targets different viral components. It would not be given, however, to healthy, immunocompetent adults because it is important for them to have both B-cell antibody and T-cell response.
The patients with B-cell deficiency recruited for the study were given a single dose of CoVac-1 and assessed for safety and immunogenicity until day 56. Prior vaccinations with an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had failed to elicit a humoral response in 87% of the subjects.
“Our vaccine does not induce antibody responses,” Dr. Walz said. “However, it could be used to induce broad T-cell responses as a complementary or additive vaccine for elderly adults. In the elderly, antibody responses decline very, very fast after vaccination.”
Dr. Walz said that CoVac-1 could find application in various syndromes associated with congenital B-cell deficiencies, in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, or diseases treated with rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies (for example, ofatumumab, blinatumomab, or chimeric antigen receptor T cells), and in transplant patients.
A phase 3 study of CoVac-1 versus placebo is under discussion and would require about 300-500 subjects, Dr. Walz said.
“CoVac-1 is designed to induce broad and long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity, even in individuals who have impaired ability to mount sufficient immunity from a currently approved vaccine, and thus protect these high-risk patients from a severe course of COVID-19,” Dr. Walz said.
“Having an option for these patients is just critical – so this is significant work,” said Ana Maria Lopez, MD, MPH, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health, Philadelphia.
Limitations of this study included the small sample size with low racial and ethnic diversity, Dr. Walz stated.
Funding was provided by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the state of Baden-Württemberg; the Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany; the German Research Foundation under Germany’s Excellence Strategy; and the Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Immunology at University Hospital Tübingen. Dr. Walz holds the CoVac-1 patent.
FROM AACR 2022
Assay-guided chemo in recurrent glioma linked to longer survival
New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.
The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).
“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.
As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.
“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”
The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.
For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.
Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).
“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”
The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.
New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.
The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).
“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.
As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.
“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”
The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.
For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.
Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).
“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”
The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.
New research suggests that chemotherapy treatments for recurrent high-grade gliomas indicated by an assay-guided tool called ChemoID can boost median survival, compared with physician choice.
The randomized, phase 3 trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Over a median follow-up of 9 months, median overall survival in the ChemoID group was 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.7), compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the group whose treatments were chosen by physicians (P = .010).
“While the prognosis is very dismal, we’re still providing a 3.5-month benefit in the guided arm versus physician choice,” said study coauthor Jagan Valluri, PhD, professor of cellular biology and integrative medicine at Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va.
As Dr. Valluri noted, patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas typically have failed radiation and are left with poor prognoses. Fewer than one in four patients respond to chemotherapy at this point, he said, and the response is inconsistent from patient to patient.
“We developed ChemoID since cancer is very unique,” he said, “and any kind of chemotherapy should be tailored to each individual patient on a case-by-case basis.”
The ChemoID tool, a proprietary assay, tests the response of patient cells to various chemotherapy treatments. A test costs $3,500, and some insurers cover it, Dr. Valluri said.
For the new study, researchers randomly assigned 50 patients with grade III/IV recurrent glioma to be treated with chemotherapy chosen by physicians or chemotherapy recommended by the ChemoID tool.
Risk of death in the ChemoID group was lower than in the physician-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; P = .008), and median progression-free survival was higher in the ChemoID group (10.1 months vs. 3.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8-15.4 vs. 1.9-5.1; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44; P < .001).
“We want the treating physician to have actionable tools in front of them before they treat the patient,” Dr. Valluri said. “We want this assay to become mainstream and part of the standard care workup.”
The study is funded by Cordgenics, where Dr. Valluri serves as chief operating officer.
FROM AACR 2022
Overuse of surveillance in bladder cancer, despite guidelines
(NMIBC), a new study concludes.
These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.
However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.
“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Higher value and more evidence-based
The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.
“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.
Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.
“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
Study finds frequent surveillance
The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.
However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.
The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).
Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.
The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.
Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.
As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.
When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).
The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NMIBC), a new study concludes.
These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.
However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.
“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Higher value and more evidence-based
The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.
“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.
Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.
“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
Study finds frequent surveillance
The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.
However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.
The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).
Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.
The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.
Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.
As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.
When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).
The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NMIBC), a new study concludes.
These cancers are associated with low rates of recurrence, progression, and bladder cancer–specific death, so current clinical practice guidelines recommend against frequent monitoring and testing.
However, the study authors found that patients with a low grade Ta NMIBC diagnosis underwent a median of three cystoscopies per year, and many also received a median of two imagine scans (CT or MRI) as well as 2-3 urine-based tests.
“These data suggest a need for ongoing efforts to limit overuse of treatment and surveillance, which may in turn mitigate associated increases in the costs of care,” write the authors, led by Kelly K. Bree, MD, from the department of urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Bladder cancer has the highest lifetime treatment cost of all malignancies, they point out.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Higher value and more evidence-based
The impact of increased surveillance of this patient cohort has broad implications for patients and the health care system in general, say experts writing in an accompanying editorial.
“It has been well established that workup for NMIBC can have negative consequences for the physical and psychological health of patients,” note Grayden S. Cook, BS, and Jeffrey M. Howard, MD, PhD, both from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“Many of these patients undergo frequent CT imaging of the urinary tract, which carries a high dose of radiation as well as the potential for financial toxic effects (that is, detrimental consequences to the patient because of health care costs),” they write.
Additionally, patient distress is a factor, as they may experience preprocedural anxiety, physical discomfort during procedures, and worry about disease progression, they point out.
“The impact of these patterns is substantial and may have negative consequences for both patients and the health care system,” they conclude. “Thus, it is imperative to move forward with initiatives that provide higher value and are more evidence-based and patient-centered.”
Study finds frequent surveillance
The American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncologists (SUO), the European Association of Urology, and the International Bladder Cancer Group have made an effort to de-escalate surveillance and treatment for patients with low-grade Ta disease, while at the same time maintaining appropriate surveillance for high-grade aggressive disease.
However, the new study found that in practice, such patients undergo frequent testing.
The study involved 13,054 patients with low-grade Ta NMIBC. Most of the participants were male (73.5%), with a median age of 76 years, and had no or few comorbidities (71.2%).
Most patients had undergone cystoscopy, and rates increased over time: from 79.3% of patients in 2004 to 81.5% of patients in 2013 (P = .007). Patients underwent a median of 3.0 cystoscopies per year following their diagnosis, and upper-tract imaging was performed in most patients.
The use of kidney ultrasonography also rose from 19% of patients in 2004 to 23.2% in 2013, as did retrograde pyelography (20.9% in 2004 vs. 24.2% in 2013). Conversely, the use of intravenous pyelography declined (from 14.5% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2012), but there was an increase in CT and MRI in all years except 2010 (from 30.4% of patients in 2004 to 47% of patients in 2013; P < .001). The rate of urine-based testing also significantly increased during the study period (from 44.8% in 2004 to 54.9% in 2013; P < .001), with patients undergoing between two to three tests per year.
Adherence to current guidelines remained similar during the study time frame. For example, 55.2% of patients received two cystoscopies per year in 2004-2008, compared with 53.8% in 2009-2013 (P = .11), suggesting that there was an overuse of all surveillance testing modalities.
As for treatment, 17.2% received intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin, 6.1% were treated with intravesical chemotherapy (excluding receipt of a single perioperative dose). Disease recurrence within this cohort was 1.7%, and only 0.4% experienced disease progression.
When looking at the cost, the total median expenditures at 1 year after diagnosis increased by 60% during the study period, from $34,792 in 2004 to $53,986 in 2013. Higher costs were seen among patients who experienced a recurrence versus no recurrence ($76,669 vs. $53,909).
The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program. Several of the authors have disclosed relationships with industry, as noted in the original article. Editorialists Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
PLA testing brings nuance to the diagnosis of early-stage melanoma
BOSTON – Although
One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.
At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.
Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.
While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.
“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”
The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
Use in clinical practice
In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.
Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.
“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.
Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
Skin biopsy still the gold standard
Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.
In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).
Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.
Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.
BOSTON – Although
One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.
At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.
Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.
While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.
“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”
The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
Use in clinical practice
In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.
Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.
“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.
Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
Skin biopsy still the gold standard
Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.
In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).
Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.
Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.
BOSTON – Although
One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.
At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.
Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.
While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.
“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”
The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
Use in clinical practice
In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.
Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.
“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.
Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
Skin biopsy still the gold standard
Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.
In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).
Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.
Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.
AT AAD 22
Lung cancer in 2030: Expand genotyping
In recent years, –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?
Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.
Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.
Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.
That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.
“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.
Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.
Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.
The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.
“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.
Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.
In recent years, –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?
Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.
Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.
Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.
That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.
“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.
Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.
Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.
The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.
“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.
Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.
In recent years, –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?
Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.
Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.
Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.
That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.
“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.
Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.
Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.
The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.
“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.
Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.
FROM ELCC 2022
Weighing the complexity of pathological response in lung cancer
studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”
In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.
Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.
In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).
“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.
Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.
He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:
- Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
- Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
- Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
- Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
- The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
- The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.
As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.
“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”
Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.
Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.
He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”
Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.
studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”
In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.
Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.
In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).
“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.
Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.
He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:
- Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
- Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
- Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
- Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
- The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
- The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.
As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.
“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”
Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.
Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.
He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”
Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.
studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”
In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.
Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.
In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).
“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.
Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.
He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:
- Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
- Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
- Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
- Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
- The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
- The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.
As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.
“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”
Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.
Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.
He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”
Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.
FROM ELCC 2022