User login
Ibrutinib + venetoclax: High-risk features don’t lessen CLL response
In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.
Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years
“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.
Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”
The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
Experts respond
Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”
As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”
Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.
“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.
However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
Study details
The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.
Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.
Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.
The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.
In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.
Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years
“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.
Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”
The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
Experts respond
Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”
As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”
Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.
“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.
However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
Study details
The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.
Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.
Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.
The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.
In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.
Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years
“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.
Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”
The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
Experts respond
Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”
As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”
Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.
“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.
However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
Study details
The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.
Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.
Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.
The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.
FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Widespread carboplatin, cisplatin shortages: NCCN survey
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
`Remarkable’: CAR T therapy for CLL/SLL
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
FROM ASCO 2023
Oncologist pleads guilty to prescription drug fraud
, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.
Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.
Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.
The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.
However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.
The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.
At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.
In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.
“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.
The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”
For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.
Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.
Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.
Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.
The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.
However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.
The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.
At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.
In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.
“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.
The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”
For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.
Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.
Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.
Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.
The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.
However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.
The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.
At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.
In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.
“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.
The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”
For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.
Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New CLL meds: Improved survival rates, 1990-2018
“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.
Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.
“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.
New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.
Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.
Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment.
“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.
“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.
Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.
Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.
“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.
Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.
“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.
New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.
Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.
Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment.
“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.
“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.
Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.
Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.
“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.
Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.
“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.
New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.
Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.
Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment.
“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.
“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.
Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.
Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Venetoclax boosts ibrutinib in high-risk CLL
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
FROM LEUKEMIA
Drug shortages in U.S. at 10-year high
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
CLL: Venetoclax combos top first-line chemoimmunotherapy
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
according to a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial, dubbed GAIA–CLL13, “is a remarkable demonstration of the quality of fixed-duration therapies for younger, fit patients, and it challenges us to continue to work to develop therapeutic strategies that will ultimately cure patients with CLL,” two hematologic cancer specialists said in an accompanying editorial.
In short, “venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib were superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to both the minimal residual disease end point and progression-free survival, but venetoclax-rituximab was not,” Jennifer Woyach, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and John Byrd, MD, University of Cincinnati, said in their commentary.
Noting that randomized trials involving venetoclax combinations in fit CLL patients “have been lacking,” the investigators compared 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) with 12 cycles of venetoclax plus the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, venetoclax plus the third generation anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, and venetoclax combined with both obinutuzumab and the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in a novel triple-therapy regimen.
The 926 patients in the study were a mean of 61 years old and split about evenly among the four treatment arms. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements if patients had undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Subjects did not have TP53 aberrations, a marker of poor prognosis in CLL.
At 15 months, the percentage of patients with uMRD was significantly higher in the triple-therapy arm (92.2%) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%), but there was no statistical difference with venetoclax-rituximab (57%, P = .32).
The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the triple-therapy arm versus 87.7% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab. The 3-year PFS with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%) was again not statistically different than the 75.5% with chemoimmunotherapy (P = .18).
Not ready for prime time
The benefits of triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab held only in patients with unmutated IgVH. “The high efficacy of the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab regimen in young, fit patients with mutated IgVH may be difficult to improve on,” noted the investigators, led by Barbara Eichhorst, MD, a hematologic malignancy specialist at the University of Cologne (Germany).
Also, although triple-therapy results were impressive, some of the benefits “are neutralized by the need for dose reductions and early treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events,” they said.
For instance, triple therapy had the highest incidence of both grade 3 and 4 infections (21.2%) and atrial fibrillation (7.8%).
The editorialists noted that there has been “a flurry of interest” in trials combining ibrutinib and venetoclax – as was done in the triple-therapy arm – since both emerged as powerful tools against CLL in recent years. However, even with the study results, they said “the use of triplet therapy should be viewed as investigational.”
For one thing, rates of uMRD were not “dramatically different” between triple therapy and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and longer follow-up is better gauge differences in PFS and long-term toxicities.
Also, ibrutinib is being eclipsed by the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, because they have better safety profiles, and they are being assessed in CLL combination trials. For now, there are too many unknowns for routine use of triple therapy in fit CLL patients, they said.
The investigators and editorialists both noted that improved uMRD in the study translated into superior PFS, raising the possibility that uMRD might be a valid alternative endpoint to PFS in CLL trials.
With “median remissions in CLL lasting far in excess of 5 years, designing studies that take 8-10 years” to reach a PFS endpoint is simply too slow. Moving to an alternative endpoint such a uMRD would preserve “the momentum that has been generated” with recent advances, Dr. Woyach and Dr. Byrd said.
The work was funded by the companies that market venetoclax, ibrutinib, and obinutuzumab: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Dr. Eichhorst is a consultant and/or speaker for the companies and also reported grants from them. Dr. Byrd is a consultant/adviser for Eilean Therapeutics, Kurome Therapeutics, Newave, and Orbimed. Dr. Woyach disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and other companies.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Number of cancer survivors with functional limitations doubled in 20 years
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY