CNS/Brain Cancer

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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 artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

New details confirm an increased risk of developing intracranial meningiomas after prolonged use of the hormonal product cyproterone acetate.

Cyproterone acetate is a synthetic progestogen and potent antiandrogen that has been used in the treatment of hirsutism, alopecia, early puberty, amenorrhea, acne, and prostate cancer, and has also been combined with an estrogen in hormone replacement therapy.

The new findings were published online in the BMJ. The primary analysis showed that, among women using cyproterone acetate, the rate of meningiomas was 23.8 per 100,000 person years vs. 4.5 per 100,000 in the control group. After adjusting for confounders, cyproterone acetate was associated with a sevenfold increased risk of meningioma.

These were young women – the mean age of participants was 29.4 years, and more than 40% of the cohort were younger than 25 years. The initial prescriber was a gynecologist for more than half (56.7%) of the participants, and 31.6% of prescriptions could correspond to the treatment of acne without hirsutism; 13.1% of prescriptions were compatible with management of hirsutism.

“Our study provides confirmation of the risk but also the measurement of the dose-effect relationship, the decrease in the risk after stopping use, and the preferential anatomical localization of meningiomas,” said lead author Alain Weill, MD, EPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group, Saint-Denis, France.

“A large proportion of meningiomas involve the skull base, which is of considerable importance because skull base meningioma surgery is one of the most challenging forms of surgery and is associated with a much higher risk than surgery for convexity meningiomas,” he said in an interview.

Cyproterone acetate products have been available in Europe since the 1970s under various trade names and dose strengths (1, 2, 10, 50, and 100 mg), and marketed for various indications. These products are also marketed in many other industrialized nations, but not in the United States or Japan.

The link between cyproterone acetate and an increased risk of meningioma has been known for the past decade, and information on the risk of meningioma is already included in the prescribing information for cyproterone products.

Last year, the European Medicines Agency strengthened the warnings that were already in place and recommended that cyproterone products with daily doses of 10 mg or more be restricted because of the risk of developing meningioma.

“The recommendation from the EMA is a direct consequence of our study, that was sent to the EMA in summary form in 2018 and followed up with a very detailed with a report in summer 2019,” said Dr. Weill. “In light of this report, the European Medicines Agency recommended in February 2020 that drugs containing 10 mg or more of cyproterone acetate should only be used for hirsutism, androgenic alopecia, and acne and seborrhea once other treatment options have failed, including treatment with lower doses.”

Dr. Weill pointed out that two other epidemiologic studies have assessed the link between cyproterone acetate use and meningioma and showed an association. “Those studies and our own study are complementary and provide a coherent set of epidemiological evidence,” he said in the interview. “They show a documented risk for high-dose cyproterone acetate in men, women, and transgender people, and the absence of any observed risk for low-dose cyproterone acetate use in women.”
 

Strong dose-effect relationship

For their study, Dr. Weill and colleagues used data from the French administrative health care database. Between 2007 and 2014, 253,777 girls and women aged 7-70 years had begun using cyproterone acetate during that time period.

All participants had received at least one prescription for high-dose cyproterone acetate and did not have a history of meningioma, benign brain tumors, or long-term disease. They were considered to be exposed if they had received a cumulative dose of at least 3 g during the first 6 months (139,222 participants) and very slightly exposed (control group) when they had received a cumulative dose of less than 3 g (114,555 participants).

Overall, a total of 69 meningiomas were diagnosed in the exposed group (during 289,544 person years of follow-up) and 20 meningiomas in the control group (during 439,949 person years of follow-up). All were treated by surgery or radiotherapy.

When the analysis was done according to the cumulative dose, it showed a dose-effect relation, with a higher risk associated with a higher cumulative dose. The hazard ratio was not significant for exposure to less than 12 g of cyproterone acetate, but it jumped rapidly jumped as the dose climbed: The hazard ratio was 11.3 for 36-60 g and was 21.7 for 60 g or higher.

In a secondary analysis, the authors looked at the cohort who were already using cyproterone acetate in 2006 (n = 123,997). Women with long-term exposure were also taking estrogens more often (55.5% vs. 31.9%), and the incidence of meningioma in the exposed group was 141 per 100,000 person years, which was a risk greater than 20-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 21.2.) They also observed a strong dose-effect relationship, with adjusted hazard ratio ranging from 5.0 to 31.1.

However, the risk of meningioma decreased noticeably after treatment was stopped. At 1 year after discontinuing treatment, the risk of meningioma in the exposed group was 1.8-fold higher (1.0 to 3.2) than in the control group.

Dr. Weill noted the clinical implications of these findings: clinicians need to inform patients who have used high-dose cyproterone acetate for at least 3-5 years about the increased risk of intracranial meningioma, he said.  

“The indication of cyproterone acetate should be clearly defined and the lowest possible daily dose used,” he said. “In the context of prolonged use of high-dose cyproterone acetate, magnetic resonance imaging screening for meningioma should be considered.”

“In patients with a documented meningioma, cyproterone acetate should be discontinued because the meningioma might regress in response to treatment discontinuation and invasive treatment could be avoided,” Dr. Weill added.
 

Use only when necessary

Weighing in on the research, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of neuro-oncology at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, noted that, “it is well known that there are sex differences in the incidence of meningiomas, as they are more frequent in women than men, and there is an association between breast cancer and the occurrence of meningiomas.”

Progesterone and androgen receptors have been found in meningiomas, she said in an interview, and there is no consensus regarding estrogen receptors. “In addition, hormonal therapy to inhibit estrogen or progesterone receptors has not produced any decrease in meningiomas’ growth,” she said.

The current study revealed an association between prolonged use of cyproterone acetate with an increased incidence of meningiomas, and the sphenoid-orbital meningioma location was specific for the drug use. “It is unclear from the study if all the meningiomas were benign,” she said. “Even if they are benign, they can cause severe morbidity, including seizures.”

Dr. Hormigo recommended that an MRI be performed on any patient who is taking a long course of cyproterone acetate in order to evaluate the development of meningiomas or meningioma progression. “And the drug should only be used when necessary,” she added.

This research was funded by the French National Health Insurance Fund and the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. Dr. Weill is an employee of the French National Health Insurance Fund, as are several other coauthors. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hormigo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New details confirm an increased risk of developing intracranial meningiomas after prolonged use of the hormonal product cyproterone acetate.

Cyproterone acetate is a synthetic progestogen and potent antiandrogen that has been used in the treatment of hirsutism, alopecia, early puberty, amenorrhea, acne, and prostate cancer, and has also been combined with an estrogen in hormone replacement therapy.

The new findings were published online in the BMJ. The primary analysis showed that, among women using cyproterone acetate, the rate of meningiomas was 23.8 per 100,000 person years vs. 4.5 per 100,000 in the control group. After adjusting for confounders, cyproterone acetate was associated with a sevenfold increased risk of meningioma.

These were young women – the mean age of participants was 29.4 years, and more than 40% of the cohort were younger than 25 years. The initial prescriber was a gynecologist for more than half (56.7%) of the participants, and 31.6% of prescriptions could correspond to the treatment of acne without hirsutism; 13.1% of prescriptions were compatible with management of hirsutism.

“Our study provides confirmation of the risk but also the measurement of the dose-effect relationship, the decrease in the risk after stopping use, and the preferential anatomical localization of meningiomas,” said lead author Alain Weill, MD, EPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group, Saint-Denis, France.

“A large proportion of meningiomas involve the skull base, which is of considerable importance because skull base meningioma surgery is one of the most challenging forms of surgery and is associated with a much higher risk than surgery for convexity meningiomas,” he said in an interview.

Cyproterone acetate products have been available in Europe since the 1970s under various trade names and dose strengths (1, 2, 10, 50, and 100 mg), and marketed for various indications. These products are also marketed in many other industrialized nations, but not in the United States or Japan.

The link between cyproterone acetate and an increased risk of meningioma has been known for the past decade, and information on the risk of meningioma is already included in the prescribing information for cyproterone products.

Last year, the European Medicines Agency strengthened the warnings that were already in place and recommended that cyproterone products with daily doses of 10 mg or more be restricted because of the risk of developing meningioma.

“The recommendation from the EMA is a direct consequence of our study, that was sent to the EMA in summary form in 2018 and followed up with a very detailed with a report in summer 2019,” said Dr. Weill. “In light of this report, the European Medicines Agency recommended in February 2020 that drugs containing 10 mg or more of cyproterone acetate should only be used for hirsutism, androgenic alopecia, and acne and seborrhea once other treatment options have failed, including treatment with lower doses.”

Dr. Weill pointed out that two other epidemiologic studies have assessed the link between cyproterone acetate use and meningioma and showed an association. “Those studies and our own study are complementary and provide a coherent set of epidemiological evidence,” he said in the interview. “They show a documented risk for high-dose cyproterone acetate in men, women, and transgender people, and the absence of any observed risk for low-dose cyproterone acetate use in women.”
 

Strong dose-effect relationship

For their study, Dr. Weill and colleagues used data from the French administrative health care database. Between 2007 and 2014, 253,777 girls and women aged 7-70 years had begun using cyproterone acetate during that time period.

All participants had received at least one prescription for high-dose cyproterone acetate and did not have a history of meningioma, benign brain tumors, or long-term disease. They were considered to be exposed if they had received a cumulative dose of at least 3 g during the first 6 months (139,222 participants) and very slightly exposed (control group) when they had received a cumulative dose of less than 3 g (114,555 participants).

Overall, a total of 69 meningiomas were diagnosed in the exposed group (during 289,544 person years of follow-up) and 20 meningiomas in the control group (during 439,949 person years of follow-up). All were treated by surgery or radiotherapy.

When the analysis was done according to the cumulative dose, it showed a dose-effect relation, with a higher risk associated with a higher cumulative dose. The hazard ratio was not significant for exposure to less than 12 g of cyproterone acetate, but it jumped rapidly jumped as the dose climbed: The hazard ratio was 11.3 for 36-60 g and was 21.7 for 60 g or higher.

In a secondary analysis, the authors looked at the cohort who were already using cyproterone acetate in 2006 (n = 123,997). Women with long-term exposure were also taking estrogens more often (55.5% vs. 31.9%), and the incidence of meningioma in the exposed group was 141 per 100,000 person years, which was a risk greater than 20-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 21.2.) They also observed a strong dose-effect relationship, with adjusted hazard ratio ranging from 5.0 to 31.1.

However, the risk of meningioma decreased noticeably after treatment was stopped. At 1 year after discontinuing treatment, the risk of meningioma in the exposed group was 1.8-fold higher (1.0 to 3.2) than in the control group.

Dr. Weill noted the clinical implications of these findings: clinicians need to inform patients who have used high-dose cyproterone acetate for at least 3-5 years about the increased risk of intracranial meningioma, he said.  

“The indication of cyproterone acetate should be clearly defined and the lowest possible daily dose used,” he said. “In the context of prolonged use of high-dose cyproterone acetate, magnetic resonance imaging screening for meningioma should be considered.”

“In patients with a documented meningioma, cyproterone acetate should be discontinued because the meningioma might regress in response to treatment discontinuation and invasive treatment could be avoided,” Dr. Weill added.
 

Use only when necessary

Weighing in on the research, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of neuro-oncology at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, noted that, “it is well known that there are sex differences in the incidence of meningiomas, as they are more frequent in women than men, and there is an association between breast cancer and the occurrence of meningiomas.”

Progesterone and androgen receptors have been found in meningiomas, she said in an interview, and there is no consensus regarding estrogen receptors. “In addition, hormonal therapy to inhibit estrogen or progesterone receptors has not produced any decrease in meningiomas’ growth,” she said.

The current study revealed an association between prolonged use of cyproterone acetate with an increased incidence of meningiomas, and the sphenoid-orbital meningioma location was specific for the drug use. “It is unclear from the study if all the meningiomas were benign,” she said. “Even if they are benign, they can cause severe morbidity, including seizures.”

Dr. Hormigo recommended that an MRI be performed on any patient who is taking a long course of cyproterone acetate in order to evaluate the development of meningiomas or meningioma progression. “And the drug should only be used when necessary,” she added.

This research was funded by the French National Health Insurance Fund and the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. Dr. Weill is an employee of the French National Health Insurance Fund, as are several other coauthors. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hormigo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New details confirm an increased risk of developing intracranial meningiomas after prolonged use of the hormonal product cyproterone acetate.

Cyproterone acetate is a synthetic progestogen and potent antiandrogen that has been used in the treatment of hirsutism, alopecia, early puberty, amenorrhea, acne, and prostate cancer, and has also been combined with an estrogen in hormone replacement therapy.

The new findings were published online in the BMJ. The primary analysis showed that, among women using cyproterone acetate, the rate of meningiomas was 23.8 per 100,000 person years vs. 4.5 per 100,000 in the control group. After adjusting for confounders, cyproterone acetate was associated with a sevenfold increased risk of meningioma.

These were young women – the mean age of participants was 29.4 years, and more than 40% of the cohort were younger than 25 years. The initial prescriber was a gynecologist for more than half (56.7%) of the participants, and 31.6% of prescriptions could correspond to the treatment of acne without hirsutism; 13.1% of prescriptions were compatible with management of hirsutism.

“Our study provides confirmation of the risk but also the measurement of the dose-effect relationship, the decrease in the risk after stopping use, and the preferential anatomical localization of meningiomas,” said lead author Alain Weill, MD, EPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group, Saint-Denis, France.

“A large proportion of meningiomas involve the skull base, which is of considerable importance because skull base meningioma surgery is one of the most challenging forms of surgery and is associated with a much higher risk than surgery for convexity meningiomas,” he said in an interview.

Cyproterone acetate products have been available in Europe since the 1970s under various trade names and dose strengths (1, 2, 10, 50, and 100 mg), and marketed for various indications. These products are also marketed in many other industrialized nations, but not in the United States or Japan.

The link between cyproterone acetate and an increased risk of meningioma has been known for the past decade, and information on the risk of meningioma is already included in the prescribing information for cyproterone products.

Last year, the European Medicines Agency strengthened the warnings that were already in place and recommended that cyproterone products with daily doses of 10 mg or more be restricted because of the risk of developing meningioma.

“The recommendation from the EMA is a direct consequence of our study, that was sent to the EMA in summary form in 2018 and followed up with a very detailed with a report in summer 2019,” said Dr. Weill. “In light of this report, the European Medicines Agency recommended in February 2020 that drugs containing 10 mg or more of cyproterone acetate should only be used for hirsutism, androgenic alopecia, and acne and seborrhea once other treatment options have failed, including treatment with lower doses.”

Dr. Weill pointed out that two other epidemiologic studies have assessed the link between cyproterone acetate use and meningioma and showed an association. “Those studies and our own study are complementary and provide a coherent set of epidemiological evidence,” he said in the interview. “They show a documented risk for high-dose cyproterone acetate in men, women, and transgender people, and the absence of any observed risk for low-dose cyproterone acetate use in women.”
 

Strong dose-effect relationship

For their study, Dr. Weill and colleagues used data from the French administrative health care database. Between 2007 and 2014, 253,777 girls and women aged 7-70 years had begun using cyproterone acetate during that time period.

All participants had received at least one prescription for high-dose cyproterone acetate and did not have a history of meningioma, benign brain tumors, or long-term disease. They were considered to be exposed if they had received a cumulative dose of at least 3 g during the first 6 months (139,222 participants) and very slightly exposed (control group) when they had received a cumulative dose of less than 3 g (114,555 participants).

Overall, a total of 69 meningiomas were diagnosed in the exposed group (during 289,544 person years of follow-up) and 20 meningiomas in the control group (during 439,949 person years of follow-up). All were treated by surgery or radiotherapy.

When the analysis was done according to the cumulative dose, it showed a dose-effect relation, with a higher risk associated with a higher cumulative dose. The hazard ratio was not significant for exposure to less than 12 g of cyproterone acetate, but it jumped rapidly jumped as the dose climbed: The hazard ratio was 11.3 for 36-60 g and was 21.7 for 60 g or higher.

In a secondary analysis, the authors looked at the cohort who were already using cyproterone acetate in 2006 (n = 123,997). Women with long-term exposure were also taking estrogens more often (55.5% vs. 31.9%), and the incidence of meningioma in the exposed group was 141 per 100,000 person years, which was a risk greater than 20-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 21.2.) They also observed a strong dose-effect relationship, with adjusted hazard ratio ranging from 5.0 to 31.1.

However, the risk of meningioma decreased noticeably after treatment was stopped. At 1 year after discontinuing treatment, the risk of meningioma in the exposed group was 1.8-fold higher (1.0 to 3.2) than in the control group.

Dr. Weill noted the clinical implications of these findings: clinicians need to inform patients who have used high-dose cyproterone acetate for at least 3-5 years about the increased risk of intracranial meningioma, he said.  

“The indication of cyproterone acetate should be clearly defined and the lowest possible daily dose used,” he said. “In the context of prolonged use of high-dose cyproterone acetate, magnetic resonance imaging screening for meningioma should be considered.”

“In patients with a documented meningioma, cyproterone acetate should be discontinued because the meningioma might regress in response to treatment discontinuation and invasive treatment could be avoided,” Dr. Weill added.
 

Use only when necessary

Weighing in on the research, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of neuro-oncology at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, noted that, “it is well known that there are sex differences in the incidence of meningiomas, as they are more frequent in women than men, and there is an association between breast cancer and the occurrence of meningiomas.”

Progesterone and androgen receptors have been found in meningiomas, she said in an interview, and there is no consensus regarding estrogen receptors. “In addition, hormonal therapy to inhibit estrogen or progesterone receptors has not produced any decrease in meningiomas’ growth,” she said.

The current study revealed an association between prolonged use of cyproterone acetate with an increased incidence of meningiomas, and the sphenoid-orbital meningioma location was specific for the drug use. “It is unclear from the study if all the meningiomas were benign,” she said. “Even if they are benign, they can cause severe morbidity, including seizures.”

Dr. Hormigo recommended that an MRI be performed on any patient who is taking a long course of cyproterone acetate in order to evaluate the development of meningiomas or meningioma progression. “And the drug should only be used when necessary,” she added.

This research was funded by the French National Health Insurance Fund and the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. Dr. Weill is an employee of the French National Health Insurance Fund, as are several other coauthors. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hormigo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

In contrast to what has been seen in other tumor types, recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) may respond better to immunotherapy when tumor mutational burden (TMB) is low, new research suggests.

There’s an “unexpected correlation between TMB, tumor-intrinsic inflammation, and survival after immunotherapy” in this patient population, researchers noted in a Nature Communications report.

Cases of rGBM in which TMB is low are more likely to respond to immunotherapy than cases in which TMB is higher, the investigators concluded from an analysis of tumor tissue from more than 100 patients.

“We need to do a prospective study and establish a threshold in a particular assay format,” senior author David Ashley, MBBS, PhD, a neurosurgery professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

Andrew Sloan, MD, a neurosurgery professor at the Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, said in a comment that “many have given up on immunotherapy for GBM because these tumors tend to have lower TMB than tumors that typically respond to immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibitors.” (Examples include melanoma and lung cancer.)

“If the findings are confirmed, it would be very useful clinically to select” patients for immunotherapy, Dr. Sloan commented.
 

Correlation seen with rGBM, not primary tumor

Recurrence of GBM is almost inevitable, even when aggressive standard-of-care therapy is given initially, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues. Studies have indicated that, in 10%-20% of patients with rGBM, disease responds to subsequent immunotherapy, and patients live beyond the predicted median survival of about 12 months. It’s been unclear, however, what distinguishes these survivors from the other patients.

Dr. Ashley and colleagues looked for common genetic factors that distinguish survivors.

The tumor tissue the team analyzed came from three studies. The first was a trial of an intratumoral infusion of a recombinant nonpathogenic poliorhinovirus chimera (PVSRIPO), developed at Duke University, that induces innate inflammation and T-cell attack. Among 61 patients, 21% were alive at 3 years versus 4% of historical control patients.

The second study was a review of 66 patients with GBM who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. The median survival was 14.3 months among those who experienced a response versus10.1 months for those who did not.

The third study involved more than 1,000 patients with advanced cancer who underwent treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. There was no survival benefit among the 117 patients with glioma who were treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

In the PVSRIPO trial, rGBM tumors from patients who survived longer than 20 months harbored very low TMB, less than 0.6 mutations/Mb. In the two checkpoint inhibitor trials, among 110 patients with rGBM, survival was longer for those whose TMB was at or below the median level.

The differences in survival were not driven by differences in steroid dosing, unfavorable responses among patients with hypermutations, or the presence or absence of IDH1 or PTEN mutations or MGMT promoter methylation, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues.

“Increased survival of immunotherapy-treated rGBM patients with very low TMB is due to immunotherapy response,” the investigators concluded.

As for the explanation, the team found that rGBM tumors with lower TMB levels had enriched inflammatory gene signatures, compared with tumors with higher TMB levels.

The correlation – and longer survival with low TMB – was not observed in primary GBM tumors, “indicating that a relationship between tumor-intrinsic inflammation and TMB develops upon recurrence. ... We postulate that the baseline inflammatory status of rGBM tumors determines their susceptibility to immunotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Because the correlation between tumor inflammation and TMB was robust in rGBM but not in primary tumors, it might well have been caused by standard-of-care therapy, which affects mutation levels.

“Chemotherapy, which is the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma, might be altering the inflammatory response in these tumors” and priming an inflammatory process that increases vulnerability to immunotherapy in recurrent tumors, Dr. Ashley said in a press release.

Shorter time to recurrence also correlated with lower TMB and favorable response to PVSRIPO, so shorter duration of standard therapy or shorter time from initial surgery might improve immunotherapy response, he speculated.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. Dr. Ashley and other investigators own intellectual property related to PVSRIPO, which has been licensed to Istari Oncology. Several investigators hold equity in and/or are paid consultants for Istari. Dr. Sloan is the Ohio principal investigator for an rGBM PVSRIPO and pembrolizumab study funded by the company.

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

In contrast to what has been seen in other tumor types, recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) may respond better to immunotherapy when tumor mutational burden (TMB) is low, new research suggests.

There’s an “unexpected correlation between TMB, tumor-intrinsic inflammation, and survival after immunotherapy” in this patient population, researchers noted in a Nature Communications report.

Cases of rGBM in which TMB is low are more likely to respond to immunotherapy than cases in which TMB is higher, the investigators concluded from an analysis of tumor tissue from more than 100 patients.

“We need to do a prospective study and establish a threshold in a particular assay format,” senior author David Ashley, MBBS, PhD, a neurosurgery professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

Andrew Sloan, MD, a neurosurgery professor at the Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, said in a comment that “many have given up on immunotherapy for GBM because these tumors tend to have lower TMB than tumors that typically respond to immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibitors.” (Examples include melanoma and lung cancer.)

“If the findings are confirmed, it would be very useful clinically to select” patients for immunotherapy, Dr. Sloan commented.
 

Correlation seen with rGBM, not primary tumor

Recurrence of GBM is almost inevitable, even when aggressive standard-of-care therapy is given initially, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues. Studies have indicated that, in 10%-20% of patients with rGBM, disease responds to subsequent immunotherapy, and patients live beyond the predicted median survival of about 12 months. It’s been unclear, however, what distinguishes these survivors from the other patients.

Dr. Ashley and colleagues looked for common genetic factors that distinguish survivors.

The tumor tissue the team analyzed came from three studies. The first was a trial of an intratumoral infusion of a recombinant nonpathogenic poliorhinovirus chimera (PVSRIPO), developed at Duke University, that induces innate inflammation and T-cell attack. Among 61 patients, 21% were alive at 3 years versus 4% of historical control patients.

The second study was a review of 66 patients with GBM who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. The median survival was 14.3 months among those who experienced a response versus10.1 months for those who did not.

The third study involved more than 1,000 patients with advanced cancer who underwent treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. There was no survival benefit among the 117 patients with glioma who were treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

In the PVSRIPO trial, rGBM tumors from patients who survived longer than 20 months harbored very low TMB, less than 0.6 mutations/Mb. In the two checkpoint inhibitor trials, among 110 patients with rGBM, survival was longer for those whose TMB was at or below the median level.

The differences in survival were not driven by differences in steroid dosing, unfavorable responses among patients with hypermutations, or the presence or absence of IDH1 or PTEN mutations or MGMT promoter methylation, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues.

“Increased survival of immunotherapy-treated rGBM patients with very low TMB is due to immunotherapy response,” the investigators concluded.

As for the explanation, the team found that rGBM tumors with lower TMB levels had enriched inflammatory gene signatures, compared with tumors with higher TMB levels.

The correlation – and longer survival with low TMB – was not observed in primary GBM tumors, “indicating that a relationship between tumor-intrinsic inflammation and TMB develops upon recurrence. ... We postulate that the baseline inflammatory status of rGBM tumors determines their susceptibility to immunotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Because the correlation between tumor inflammation and TMB was robust in rGBM but not in primary tumors, it might well have been caused by standard-of-care therapy, which affects mutation levels.

“Chemotherapy, which is the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma, might be altering the inflammatory response in these tumors” and priming an inflammatory process that increases vulnerability to immunotherapy in recurrent tumors, Dr. Ashley said in a press release.

Shorter time to recurrence also correlated with lower TMB and favorable response to PVSRIPO, so shorter duration of standard therapy or shorter time from initial surgery might improve immunotherapy response, he speculated.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. Dr. Ashley and other investigators own intellectual property related to PVSRIPO, which has been licensed to Istari Oncology. Several investigators hold equity in and/or are paid consultants for Istari. Dr. Sloan is the Ohio principal investigator for an rGBM PVSRIPO and pembrolizumab study funded by the company.

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

In contrast to what has been seen in other tumor types, recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) may respond better to immunotherapy when tumor mutational burden (TMB) is low, new research suggests.

There’s an “unexpected correlation between TMB, tumor-intrinsic inflammation, and survival after immunotherapy” in this patient population, researchers noted in a Nature Communications report.

Cases of rGBM in which TMB is low are more likely to respond to immunotherapy than cases in which TMB is higher, the investigators concluded from an analysis of tumor tissue from more than 100 patients.

“We need to do a prospective study and establish a threshold in a particular assay format,” senior author David Ashley, MBBS, PhD, a neurosurgery professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

Andrew Sloan, MD, a neurosurgery professor at the Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, said in a comment that “many have given up on immunotherapy for GBM because these tumors tend to have lower TMB than tumors that typically respond to immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibitors.” (Examples include melanoma and lung cancer.)

“If the findings are confirmed, it would be very useful clinically to select” patients for immunotherapy, Dr. Sloan commented.
 

Correlation seen with rGBM, not primary tumor

Recurrence of GBM is almost inevitable, even when aggressive standard-of-care therapy is given initially, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues. Studies have indicated that, in 10%-20% of patients with rGBM, disease responds to subsequent immunotherapy, and patients live beyond the predicted median survival of about 12 months. It’s been unclear, however, what distinguishes these survivors from the other patients.

Dr. Ashley and colleagues looked for common genetic factors that distinguish survivors.

The tumor tissue the team analyzed came from three studies. The first was a trial of an intratumoral infusion of a recombinant nonpathogenic poliorhinovirus chimera (PVSRIPO), developed at Duke University, that induces innate inflammation and T-cell attack. Among 61 patients, 21% were alive at 3 years versus 4% of historical control patients.

The second study was a review of 66 patients with GBM who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. The median survival was 14.3 months among those who experienced a response versus10.1 months for those who did not.

The third study involved more than 1,000 patients with advanced cancer who underwent treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. There was no survival benefit among the 117 patients with glioma who were treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

In the PVSRIPO trial, rGBM tumors from patients who survived longer than 20 months harbored very low TMB, less than 0.6 mutations/Mb. In the two checkpoint inhibitor trials, among 110 patients with rGBM, survival was longer for those whose TMB was at or below the median level.

The differences in survival were not driven by differences in steroid dosing, unfavorable responses among patients with hypermutations, or the presence or absence of IDH1 or PTEN mutations or MGMT promoter methylation, according to Dr. Ashley and colleagues.

“Increased survival of immunotherapy-treated rGBM patients with very low TMB is due to immunotherapy response,” the investigators concluded.

As for the explanation, the team found that rGBM tumors with lower TMB levels had enriched inflammatory gene signatures, compared with tumors with higher TMB levels.

The correlation – and longer survival with low TMB – was not observed in primary GBM tumors, “indicating that a relationship between tumor-intrinsic inflammation and TMB develops upon recurrence. ... We postulate that the baseline inflammatory status of rGBM tumors determines their susceptibility to immunotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Because the correlation between tumor inflammation and TMB was robust in rGBM but not in primary tumors, it might well have been caused by standard-of-care therapy, which affects mutation levels.

“Chemotherapy, which is the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma, might be altering the inflammatory response in these tumors” and priming an inflammatory process that increases vulnerability to immunotherapy in recurrent tumors, Dr. Ashley said in a press release.

Shorter time to recurrence also correlated with lower TMB and favorable response to PVSRIPO, so shorter duration of standard therapy or shorter time from initial surgery might improve immunotherapy response, he speculated.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. Dr. Ashley and other investigators own intellectual property related to PVSRIPO, which has been licensed to Istari Oncology. Several investigators hold equity in and/or are paid consultants for Istari. Dr. Sloan is the Ohio principal investigator for an rGBM PVSRIPO and pembrolizumab study funded by the company.

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

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.