User login
Novel virus targeting deadly brain tumors shows early promise
The findings, published June 29 in The Lancet Oncology, show early promise in targeting malignant gliomas, which have been notoriously difficult to treat. Only 1 in 4 patients are alive 2 years after diagnosis. The median overall survival from diagnosis is 14.6-16.7 months.
In a study of a novel therapy called NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 – an oncolytic adenovirus delivered across the blood-brain barrier by neural stem cells – overall survival improved by several months for patients with malignant gliomas.
“To my knowledge, this is the first time neural stem cells have been used as a delivery strategy for an oncolytic virus,” said Terence Burns, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the research.
In this open-label, dose-escalation trial, researchers enrolled 12 patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas between April 2017 and November 2019. After neurosurgical tumor resection, patients were placed in one of three cohorts distinguished by dose of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7. Three patients received the lowest dose of 6.25×1010 viral particles administered by 5.00×10⁷ neural stem cells (NSCs), three received a more moderate dose of 1.25×10 viral particles administered by 1.00×108 NSCs, and the remaining six patients received a dose of 1.875×1011 viral particles administered by 1.50×108 NSCs. Within 10-14 days, the investigators also initiated treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy.
The investigators report that after a median 18-month follow-up period, median progression-free survival was 9.1 months, and median overall survival of 18.4 months. In a subgroup of patients with unmethylated MGMT promoters – DNA repair enzymes that make tumor cells more resistant to treatment – median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, and median overall survival was 18.0 months.
There was no dose-limiting toxicity, and there were no treatment-related deaths. One patient developed viral meningitis, owing to the inadvertent ventricular injection of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7, and fully recovered after hospitalization.
Patients tolerated the treatment well, which is critical because “drugs that could fight gliomas might also have serious adverse effects,” first author Jawad Fares, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in neurological surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
A novel approach
A significant challenge to delivering drugs to the site of malignant gliomas is the blood-brain barrier, which blocks entry of many chemotherapeutic drugs.
“Because of this barrier, physicians often employ other strategies, such as direct injection in the brain cavity, but even with an injection, it is problematic to disseminate the drug so that the medication spreads throughout the tumor mass,” said Dr. Fares. “Our innovative approach, which employs the use of neural stem cells as shuttles to deliver viruses, seeks to address this problem. Neural stem cells tend to travel within hours to areas of injury, areas of stroke or brain tumors, and could disperse the oncolytic virus.”
Gliomas create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which uses tissue cells, blood vessels, immune cells, and other parts of the body to blunt antitumor immune responses. Using NSCs to deliver NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 directly to the tumor has the advantage of “giving the virus more time to replicate and kill tumor cells,” said Marta Alonso Roldán, MD, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, in Spain, in an interview.
Although NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 appeared to improve survival in this cohort by a few months, follow-up trials with larger sample sizes and control groups are necessary to demonstrate efficacy.
Moreover, patients in this trial may not be representative of the average patient, said Dr. Burns. “For instance, three of the patients had relatively small tumors in nicely operable areas with a high likelihood of getting a gross total resection. These things do stack your odds in favor of having a longer survival.”
Moving forward, “this trial sets the stage for a phase 2/3 study in which the efficacy of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 in eliciting an antiglioma immune response and prolonging survival in a larger cohort of patients with controlled conditions can be explored,” Dr. Fares said.
The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fares, Dr. Burns, and Dr. Roldán have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, published June 29 in The Lancet Oncology, show early promise in targeting malignant gliomas, which have been notoriously difficult to treat. Only 1 in 4 patients are alive 2 years after diagnosis. The median overall survival from diagnosis is 14.6-16.7 months.
In a study of a novel therapy called NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 – an oncolytic adenovirus delivered across the blood-brain barrier by neural stem cells – overall survival improved by several months for patients with malignant gliomas.
“To my knowledge, this is the first time neural stem cells have been used as a delivery strategy for an oncolytic virus,” said Terence Burns, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the research.
In this open-label, dose-escalation trial, researchers enrolled 12 patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas between April 2017 and November 2019. After neurosurgical tumor resection, patients were placed in one of three cohorts distinguished by dose of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7. Three patients received the lowest dose of 6.25×1010 viral particles administered by 5.00×10⁷ neural stem cells (NSCs), three received a more moderate dose of 1.25×10 viral particles administered by 1.00×108 NSCs, and the remaining six patients received a dose of 1.875×1011 viral particles administered by 1.50×108 NSCs. Within 10-14 days, the investigators also initiated treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy.
The investigators report that after a median 18-month follow-up period, median progression-free survival was 9.1 months, and median overall survival of 18.4 months. In a subgroup of patients with unmethylated MGMT promoters – DNA repair enzymes that make tumor cells more resistant to treatment – median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, and median overall survival was 18.0 months.
There was no dose-limiting toxicity, and there were no treatment-related deaths. One patient developed viral meningitis, owing to the inadvertent ventricular injection of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7, and fully recovered after hospitalization.
Patients tolerated the treatment well, which is critical because “drugs that could fight gliomas might also have serious adverse effects,” first author Jawad Fares, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in neurological surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
A novel approach
A significant challenge to delivering drugs to the site of malignant gliomas is the blood-brain barrier, which blocks entry of many chemotherapeutic drugs.
“Because of this barrier, physicians often employ other strategies, such as direct injection in the brain cavity, but even with an injection, it is problematic to disseminate the drug so that the medication spreads throughout the tumor mass,” said Dr. Fares. “Our innovative approach, which employs the use of neural stem cells as shuttles to deliver viruses, seeks to address this problem. Neural stem cells tend to travel within hours to areas of injury, areas of stroke or brain tumors, and could disperse the oncolytic virus.”
Gliomas create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which uses tissue cells, blood vessels, immune cells, and other parts of the body to blunt antitumor immune responses. Using NSCs to deliver NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 directly to the tumor has the advantage of “giving the virus more time to replicate and kill tumor cells,” said Marta Alonso Roldán, MD, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, in Spain, in an interview.
Although NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 appeared to improve survival in this cohort by a few months, follow-up trials with larger sample sizes and control groups are necessary to demonstrate efficacy.
Moreover, patients in this trial may not be representative of the average patient, said Dr. Burns. “For instance, three of the patients had relatively small tumors in nicely operable areas with a high likelihood of getting a gross total resection. These things do stack your odds in favor of having a longer survival.”
Moving forward, “this trial sets the stage for a phase 2/3 study in which the efficacy of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 in eliciting an antiglioma immune response and prolonging survival in a larger cohort of patients with controlled conditions can be explored,” Dr. Fares said.
The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fares, Dr. Burns, and Dr. Roldán have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, published June 29 in The Lancet Oncology, show early promise in targeting malignant gliomas, which have been notoriously difficult to treat. Only 1 in 4 patients are alive 2 years after diagnosis. The median overall survival from diagnosis is 14.6-16.7 months.
In a study of a novel therapy called NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 – an oncolytic adenovirus delivered across the blood-brain barrier by neural stem cells – overall survival improved by several months for patients with malignant gliomas.
“To my knowledge, this is the first time neural stem cells have been used as a delivery strategy for an oncolytic virus,” said Terence Burns, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the research.
In this open-label, dose-escalation trial, researchers enrolled 12 patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas between April 2017 and November 2019. After neurosurgical tumor resection, patients were placed in one of three cohorts distinguished by dose of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7. Three patients received the lowest dose of 6.25×1010 viral particles administered by 5.00×10⁷ neural stem cells (NSCs), three received a more moderate dose of 1.25×10 viral particles administered by 1.00×108 NSCs, and the remaining six patients received a dose of 1.875×1011 viral particles administered by 1.50×108 NSCs. Within 10-14 days, the investigators also initiated treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy.
The investigators report that after a median 18-month follow-up period, median progression-free survival was 9.1 months, and median overall survival of 18.4 months. In a subgroup of patients with unmethylated MGMT promoters – DNA repair enzymes that make tumor cells more resistant to treatment – median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, and median overall survival was 18.0 months.
There was no dose-limiting toxicity, and there were no treatment-related deaths. One patient developed viral meningitis, owing to the inadvertent ventricular injection of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7, and fully recovered after hospitalization.
Patients tolerated the treatment well, which is critical because “drugs that could fight gliomas might also have serious adverse effects,” first author Jawad Fares, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in neurological surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
A novel approach
A significant challenge to delivering drugs to the site of malignant gliomas is the blood-brain barrier, which blocks entry of many chemotherapeutic drugs.
“Because of this barrier, physicians often employ other strategies, such as direct injection in the brain cavity, but even with an injection, it is problematic to disseminate the drug so that the medication spreads throughout the tumor mass,” said Dr. Fares. “Our innovative approach, which employs the use of neural stem cells as shuttles to deliver viruses, seeks to address this problem. Neural stem cells tend to travel within hours to areas of injury, areas of stroke or brain tumors, and could disperse the oncolytic virus.”
Gliomas create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which uses tissue cells, blood vessels, immune cells, and other parts of the body to blunt antitumor immune responses. Using NSCs to deliver NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 directly to the tumor has the advantage of “giving the virus more time to replicate and kill tumor cells,” said Marta Alonso Roldán, MD, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, in Spain, in an interview.
Although NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 appeared to improve survival in this cohort by a few months, follow-up trials with larger sample sizes and control groups are necessary to demonstrate efficacy.
Moreover, patients in this trial may not be representative of the average patient, said Dr. Burns. “For instance, three of the patients had relatively small tumors in nicely operable areas with a high likelihood of getting a gross total resection. These things do stack your odds in favor of having a longer survival.”
Moving forward, “this trial sets the stage for a phase 2/3 study in which the efficacy of NSC-CRAd-S-pk7 in eliciting an antiglioma immune response and prolonging survival in a larger cohort of patients with controlled conditions can be explored,” Dr. Fares said.
The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fares, Dr. Burns, and Dr. Roldán have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Combo treatment for NSCLC with brain metastases extends survival by two years for some
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
REPORTING FROM WCLC 2021
One in three cancer articles on social media has wrong info
Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.
Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.
“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.
“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.
“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”
The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.
Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.
One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.
The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.
“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.
Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.
“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.
“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.
In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.
“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
Study details
For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.
Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.
This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).
Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).
In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).
The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).
A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.
This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.
Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.
“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.
“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.
“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”
The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.
Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.
One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.
The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.
“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.
Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.
“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.
“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.
In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.
“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
Study details
For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.
Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.
This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).
Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).
In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).
The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).
A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.
This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.
Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.
“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.
“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.
“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”
The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.
Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.
One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.
The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.
“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.
Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.
“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.
“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.
In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.
“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
Study details
For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.
Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.
This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).
Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).
In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).
The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).
A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.
This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More children with high-risk brain cancer now surviving
A practice-changing study that used molecular testing to distinguish between subtypes of medulloblastoma has shown a significant improvement in survival for children with high-risk disease who underwent treatment intensification with carboplatin.
“Each of the four subgroups of medulloblastoma has a different prognosis, but for this particular subgroup, 20 fewer children out of every 100 would have survived prior to this study,” James Olson, MD, professor of medicine, French Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
“This is the reason for celebration – for now and forevermore, we can expect 20 more children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma to survive,” he said.
“We recommend that all children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma receive carboplatin and all children in the other subgroups do not, because we don’t want them to experience the toxicity without benefit,” Dr. Olson said.
The study was published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Oncology.
Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the carboplatin arm in the induction phase of the protocol, and toxicity persisted into the first cycles of maintenance therapy. On the other hand, “there weren’t enough additional side effects to recommend children not get carboplatin if they would benefit from it,” Dr. Olson noted.
At least 75% of children with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma survive, although those with high-risk, group 3 disease have a substantially poorer prognosis than those with other molecular subtypes.
However, if a child with medulloblastoma experiences relapse, “the likelihood of survival is near zero, so it’s important to get it right the first time,” Dr. Olson said.
One of the patients who took part in this trial, Sammy Loch of Seattle, is now 27 years old and has been cancer free for 11 years.
She was diagnosed with medulloblastoma when in high school. At the time of her diagnosis, she was asked by her pediatric oncologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital about taking part in the study. After careful consideration, she agreed.
“Participating in research was my way to give back and pay it forward,” Ms. Loch said in a statement. “It’s really exciting to know more people will survive because of the research I was involved in,” she added. She continues to pay her debt forward, serving as a therapist for people with chronic health conditions and raising funds for pediatric cancer research.
Patients had high-risk features
The study involved 261 evaluable patients (median age, 8.6 years). All patients had high-risk features, including metastatic disease (72.4% of the group), diffuse anaplastic histologic characteristics (22.2%), and incomplete surgical resection (5.4%), defined as residual tumor greater than 1.5 cm2.
“All patients received 36 Gy craniospinal radiotherapy with boost to the posterior fossa of 55.8 Gy cumulative dose with conventional fractionation of 1.8 Gy/d,” Dr. Olson and colleagues explain. Patients also received six doses of vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 weekly during radiotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin 35 mg/m2 for a total of 30 doses given daily prior to radiotherapy or placebo.
This regimen was followed by maintenance therapy, which consisted of six 28-day cycles of the combination of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1; cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 on days 2 and 3; and vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8.
Patients were originally assigned to receive an additional 12 cycles of isotretinoin or placebo, to be given during and after maintenance therapy. However, randomization to isotretinoin was discontinued early because of futility.
The study was initially powered to evaluate medulloblastoma as a single disease. However, as a result of biologic insights gained after the study was conceived, it was amended to include a molecular subgroup analysis to better distinguish patients who might truly benefit from intensified therapy, the authors explained.
Study results
The World Health Organization categorizes tumors of the central nervous system into four groups. The authors followed this system of categorization for their patients with medulloblastoma. The four groups are WNT, in which WNT signaling pathway is activated; SHH, in which the SHH signaling pathway is activated; with or without TP53 mutation (provisionally designated group 3); and non-WNT/non-SHH (provisionally designed group 4)
The primary endpoint of the trial was event-free survival (EFS). In the patient population overall, there was no significant difference regarding this endpoint among those who received carboplatin and those who did not (EFS at 5 years, 66.4% vs. 59.2%).
However, there was a significant improvement among the patients in subgroup 3. Among those patients, EFS at 5 years was 73.2% with carboplatin versus 53.7% without (P = .047).
Similarly, in the overall group, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (OS) at 5 years from the addition of carboplatin (77.6% vs. 68.8% without carboplatin). However, the OS at 5 years varied widely between the different subtypes. There was again a significant improvement in OS at 5 years among the patients in subgroup 3 (82% with carboplation vs 63.7% without).
The beneficial effects from the addition of carboplatin on both endpoints were seen exclusively in patients in group 3, the authors emphasized.
“The WNT group does really well with less therapy, so if we treated all children the same, we would likely be overtreating WNT children and undertreating group 3 children,” Dr. Olson observed. “Genetic analysis is essential.”
In an earlier study, Dr. Olson and colleagues found that 70% of children with primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the CNS and pineoblastoma had been misdiagnosed even by outstanding children’s oncology centers because clinicians were relying on microscopic diagnosis.
“With molecular diagnosis, we were able to learn that many of these children had completely different diseases that require complexly different treatments, so doing diagnosis by molecular classification is absolutely essential,” he reemphasized.
“Glimmers of hope”
This study provides clinicians with “glimmers of hope” that children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma will experience improvements in survival, wrote Allison Martin, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and Sadhana Jackson, MD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, M.d., in an accompanying editorial.
The editorialists hope that “the treatment paradigm for all patients with high-risk disease can be improved through incorporation of detailed molecular analyses.”
However, they pointed out that DNA methylation and other advanced testing methods used to distinguish subgroups 3 and 4 in this study are not widely available, even at most Children’s Oncology Group member institutions. (Dr. Olson countered that, even if these sophisticated tests are not available at all pediatric oncology centers, tests will be performed if clinicians send tissue to the few sites that are equipped to conduct them.)
The editorialists also noted that therapy intensification with carboplatin is associated with an increased risk for adverse effects – “underscoring the importance of correctly identifying patients who could benefit from this intervention and avoid unnecessary toxic effects.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Olson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Martin reported that she previously owed shares in Celgene, which she has subsequently sold.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A practice-changing study that used molecular testing to distinguish between subtypes of medulloblastoma has shown a significant improvement in survival for children with high-risk disease who underwent treatment intensification with carboplatin.
“Each of the four subgroups of medulloblastoma has a different prognosis, but for this particular subgroup, 20 fewer children out of every 100 would have survived prior to this study,” James Olson, MD, professor of medicine, French Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
“This is the reason for celebration – for now and forevermore, we can expect 20 more children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma to survive,” he said.
“We recommend that all children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma receive carboplatin and all children in the other subgroups do not, because we don’t want them to experience the toxicity without benefit,” Dr. Olson said.
The study was published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Oncology.
Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the carboplatin arm in the induction phase of the protocol, and toxicity persisted into the first cycles of maintenance therapy. On the other hand, “there weren’t enough additional side effects to recommend children not get carboplatin if they would benefit from it,” Dr. Olson noted.
At least 75% of children with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma survive, although those with high-risk, group 3 disease have a substantially poorer prognosis than those with other molecular subtypes.
However, if a child with medulloblastoma experiences relapse, “the likelihood of survival is near zero, so it’s important to get it right the first time,” Dr. Olson said.
One of the patients who took part in this trial, Sammy Loch of Seattle, is now 27 years old and has been cancer free for 11 years.
She was diagnosed with medulloblastoma when in high school. At the time of her diagnosis, she was asked by her pediatric oncologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital about taking part in the study. After careful consideration, she agreed.
“Participating in research was my way to give back and pay it forward,” Ms. Loch said in a statement. “It’s really exciting to know more people will survive because of the research I was involved in,” she added. She continues to pay her debt forward, serving as a therapist for people with chronic health conditions and raising funds for pediatric cancer research.
Patients had high-risk features
The study involved 261 evaluable patients (median age, 8.6 years). All patients had high-risk features, including metastatic disease (72.4% of the group), diffuse anaplastic histologic characteristics (22.2%), and incomplete surgical resection (5.4%), defined as residual tumor greater than 1.5 cm2.
“All patients received 36 Gy craniospinal radiotherapy with boost to the posterior fossa of 55.8 Gy cumulative dose with conventional fractionation of 1.8 Gy/d,” Dr. Olson and colleagues explain. Patients also received six doses of vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 weekly during radiotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin 35 mg/m2 for a total of 30 doses given daily prior to radiotherapy or placebo.
This regimen was followed by maintenance therapy, which consisted of six 28-day cycles of the combination of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1; cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 on days 2 and 3; and vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8.
Patients were originally assigned to receive an additional 12 cycles of isotretinoin or placebo, to be given during and after maintenance therapy. However, randomization to isotretinoin was discontinued early because of futility.
The study was initially powered to evaluate medulloblastoma as a single disease. However, as a result of biologic insights gained after the study was conceived, it was amended to include a molecular subgroup analysis to better distinguish patients who might truly benefit from intensified therapy, the authors explained.
Study results
The World Health Organization categorizes tumors of the central nervous system into four groups. The authors followed this system of categorization for their patients with medulloblastoma. The four groups are WNT, in which WNT signaling pathway is activated; SHH, in which the SHH signaling pathway is activated; with or without TP53 mutation (provisionally designated group 3); and non-WNT/non-SHH (provisionally designed group 4)
The primary endpoint of the trial was event-free survival (EFS). In the patient population overall, there was no significant difference regarding this endpoint among those who received carboplatin and those who did not (EFS at 5 years, 66.4% vs. 59.2%).
However, there was a significant improvement among the patients in subgroup 3. Among those patients, EFS at 5 years was 73.2% with carboplatin versus 53.7% without (P = .047).
Similarly, in the overall group, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (OS) at 5 years from the addition of carboplatin (77.6% vs. 68.8% without carboplatin). However, the OS at 5 years varied widely between the different subtypes. There was again a significant improvement in OS at 5 years among the patients in subgroup 3 (82% with carboplation vs 63.7% without).
The beneficial effects from the addition of carboplatin on both endpoints were seen exclusively in patients in group 3, the authors emphasized.
“The WNT group does really well with less therapy, so if we treated all children the same, we would likely be overtreating WNT children and undertreating group 3 children,” Dr. Olson observed. “Genetic analysis is essential.”
In an earlier study, Dr. Olson and colleagues found that 70% of children with primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the CNS and pineoblastoma had been misdiagnosed even by outstanding children’s oncology centers because clinicians were relying on microscopic diagnosis.
“With molecular diagnosis, we were able to learn that many of these children had completely different diseases that require complexly different treatments, so doing diagnosis by molecular classification is absolutely essential,” he reemphasized.
“Glimmers of hope”
This study provides clinicians with “glimmers of hope” that children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma will experience improvements in survival, wrote Allison Martin, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and Sadhana Jackson, MD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, M.d., in an accompanying editorial.
The editorialists hope that “the treatment paradigm for all patients with high-risk disease can be improved through incorporation of detailed molecular analyses.”
However, they pointed out that DNA methylation and other advanced testing methods used to distinguish subgroups 3 and 4 in this study are not widely available, even at most Children’s Oncology Group member institutions. (Dr. Olson countered that, even if these sophisticated tests are not available at all pediatric oncology centers, tests will be performed if clinicians send tissue to the few sites that are equipped to conduct them.)
The editorialists also noted that therapy intensification with carboplatin is associated with an increased risk for adverse effects – “underscoring the importance of correctly identifying patients who could benefit from this intervention and avoid unnecessary toxic effects.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Olson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Martin reported that she previously owed shares in Celgene, which she has subsequently sold.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A practice-changing study that used molecular testing to distinguish between subtypes of medulloblastoma has shown a significant improvement in survival for children with high-risk disease who underwent treatment intensification with carboplatin.
“Each of the four subgroups of medulloblastoma has a different prognosis, but for this particular subgroup, 20 fewer children out of every 100 would have survived prior to this study,” James Olson, MD, professor of medicine, French Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
“This is the reason for celebration – for now and forevermore, we can expect 20 more children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma to survive,” he said.
“We recommend that all children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma receive carboplatin and all children in the other subgroups do not, because we don’t want them to experience the toxicity without benefit,” Dr. Olson said.
The study was published online July 22, 2021, in JAMA Oncology.
Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the carboplatin arm in the induction phase of the protocol, and toxicity persisted into the first cycles of maintenance therapy. On the other hand, “there weren’t enough additional side effects to recommend children not get carboplatin if they would benefit from it,” Dr. Olson noted.
At least 75% of children with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma survive, although those with high-risk, group 3 disease have a substantially poorer prognosis than those with other molecular subtypes.
However, if a child with medulloblastoma experiences relapse, “the likelihood of survival is near zero, so it’s important to get it right the first time,” Dr. Olson said.
One of the patients who took part in this trial, Sammy Loch of Seattle, is now 27 years old and has been cancer free for 11 years.
She was diagnosed with medulloblastoma when in high school. At the time of her diagnosis, she was asked by her pediatric oncologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital about taking part in the study. After careful consideration, she agreed.
“Participating in research was my way to give back and pay it forward,” Ms. Loch said in a statement. “It’s really exciting to know more people will survive because of the research I was involved in,” she added. She continues to pay her debt forward, serving as a therapist for people with chronic health conditions and raising funds for pediatric cancer research.
Patients had high-risk features
The study involved 261 evaluable patients (median age, 8.6 years). All patients had high-risk features, including metastatic disease (72.4% of the group), diffuse anaplastic histologic characteristics (22.2%), and incomplete surgical resection (5.4%), defined as residual tumor greater than 1.5 cm2.
“All patients received 36 Gy craniospinal radiotherapy with boost to the posterior fossa of 55.8 Gy cumulative dose with conventional fractionation of 1.8 Gy/d,” Dr. Olson and colleagues explain. Patients also received six doses of vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 weekly during radiotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin 35 mg/m2 for a total of 30 doses given daily prior to radiotherapy or placebo.
This regimen was followed by maintenance therapy, which consisted of six 28-day cycles of the combination of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1; cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 on days 2 and 3; and vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8.
Patients were originally assigned to receive an additional 12 cycles of isotretinoin or placebo, to be given during and after maintenance therapy. However, randomization to isotretinoin was discontinued early because of futility.
The study was initially powered to evaluate medulloblastoma as a single disease. However, as a result of biologic insights gained after the study was conceived, it was amended to include a molecular subgroup analysis to better distinguish patients who might truly benefit from intensified therapy, the authors explained.
Study results
The World Health Organization categorizes tumors of the central nervous system into four groups. The authors followed this system of categorization for their patients with medulloblastoma. The four groups are WNT, in which WNT signaling pathway is activated; SHH, in which the SHH signaling pathway is activated; with or without TP53 mutation (provisionally designated group 3); and non-WNT/non-SHH (provisionally designed group 4)
The primary endpoint of the trial was event-free survival (EFS). In the patient population overall, there was no significant difference regarding this endpoint among those who received carboplatin and those who did not (EFS at 5 years, 66.4% vs. 59.2%).
However, there was a significant improvement among the patients in subgroup 3. Among those patients, EFS at 5 years was 73.2% with carboplatin versus 53.7% without (P = .047).
Similarly, in the overall group, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (OS) at 5 years from the addition of carboplatin (77.6% vs. 68.8% without carboplatin). However, the OS at 5 years varied widely between the different subtypes. There was again a significant improvement in OS at 5 years among the patients in subgroup 3 (82% with carboplation vs 63.7% without).
The beneficial effects from the addition of carboplatin on both endpoints were seen exclusively in patients in group 3, the authors emphasized.
“The WNT group does really well with less therapy, so if we treated all children the same, we would likely be overtreating WNT children and undertreating group 3 children,” Dr. Olson observed. “Genetic analysis is essential.”
In an earlier study, Dr. Olson and colleagues found that 70% of children with primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the CNS and pineoblastoma had been misdiagnosed even by outstanding children’s oncology centers because clinicians were relying on microscopic diagnosis.
“With molecular diagnosis, we were able to learn that many of these children had completely different diseases that require complexly different treatments, so doing diagnosis by molecular classification is absolutely essential,” he reemphasized.
“Glimmers of hope”
This study provides clinicians with “glimmers of hope” that children with high-risk, group 3 medulloblastoma will experience improvements in survival, wrote Allison Martin, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and Sadhana Jackson, MD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, M.d., in an accompanying editorial.
The editorialists hope that “the treatment paradigm for all patients with high-risk disease can be improved through incorporation of detailed molecular analyses.”
However, they pointed out that DNA methylation and other advanced testing methods used to distinguish subgroups 3 and 4 in this study are not widely available, even at most Children’s Oncology Group member institutions. (Dr. Olson countered that, even if these sophisticated tests are not available at all pediatric oncology centers, tests will be performed if clinicians send tissue to the few sites that are equipped to conduct them.)
The editorialists also noted that therapy intensification with carboplatin is associated with an increased risk for adverse effects – “underscoring the importance of correctly identifying patients who could benefit from this intervention and avoid unnecessary toxic effects.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Olson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Martin reported that she previously owed shares in Celgene, which she has subsequently sold.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Remarkable’ results for targeted therapy of rare CNS tumors
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
FROM ASCO 2021
Pediatric cancer survivors at risk for opioid misuse
Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.
Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.
Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Database review
Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).
They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).
They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).
They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.
In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).
Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).
Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.
Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.
Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
Opioids pre- and posttreatment?
“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.
Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.
The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.
They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.
Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.
Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.
Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Database review
Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).
They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).
They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).
They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.
In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).
Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).
Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.
Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.
Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
Opioids pre- and posttreatment?
“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.
Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.
The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.
They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.
Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.
Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.
Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Database review
Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).
They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).
They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).
They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.
In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).
Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).
Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.
Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.
Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
Opioids pre- and posttreatment?
“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.
Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.
The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.
They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM 2021 ASPHO CONFERENCE
The power and promise of social media in oncology
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM COSMO 2021
Deadly brain tumor: Survival extended by oncolytic virus product
This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.
The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.
They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.
“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
Engineered virus
G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.
The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.
One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.
In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.
“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”
In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.
The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
Phase 1 trial
The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.
There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.
The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.
For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.
Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.
Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.
Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.
The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.
No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.
There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
Radiation effect?
Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.
“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.
Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”
The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.
“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.
Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.
The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.
The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.
They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.
“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
Engineered virus
G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.
The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.
One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.
In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.
“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”
In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.
The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
Phase 1 trial
The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.
There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.
The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.
For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.
Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.
Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.
Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.
The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.
No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.
There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
Radiation effect?
Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.
“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.
Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”
The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.
“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.
Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.
The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.
The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.
They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.
“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.
“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
Engineered virus
G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.
The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.
One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.
In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.
“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”
In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.
The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
Phase 1 trial
The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.
There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.
The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.
For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.
Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.
Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.
Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.
The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.
No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.
There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
Radiation effect?
Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.
“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.
Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”
The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.
“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.
Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.
The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2021
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
mCODE: Improving data sharing to enhance cancer care
An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.
The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.
Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.
At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.
In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.
Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.
Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act
The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:
- A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
- Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
- A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
- Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
- Instability of data interoperability technologies.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.
In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”
As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
Lessons from CancerLinQ
ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.
CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.
The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.
CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.
The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
The mCODE model
The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.
Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:
- A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
- Iterative processes.
- User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
- Low ongoing maintenance requirements.
A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.
After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.
Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.
To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.
Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
Innovation, not regulation
Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.
mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.
Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.
EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.
As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.
For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.
mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.
The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.
Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.
At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.
In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.
Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.
Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act
The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:
- A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
- Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
- A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
- Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
- Instability of data interoperability technologies.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.
In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”
As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
Lessons from CancerLinQ
ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.
CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.
The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.
CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.
The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
The mCODE model
The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.
Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:
- A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
- Iterative processes.
- User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
- Low ongoing maintenance requirements.
A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.
After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.
Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.
To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.
Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
Innovation, not regulation
Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.
mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.
Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.
EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.
As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.
For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.
mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.
The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.
Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.
At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.
In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.
Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.
Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act
The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:
- A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
- Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
- A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
- Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
- Instability of data interoperability technologies.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.
In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”
As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
Lessons from CancerLinQ
ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.
CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.
The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.
CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.
The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
The mCODE model
The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.
Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:
- A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
- Iterative processes.
- User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
- Low ongoing maintenance requirements.
A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.
After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.
Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.
To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.
Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
Innovation, not regulation
Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.
mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.
Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.
EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.
As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.
For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.
mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS