CNS/Brain Cancer

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab holds promise for improving the generally dismal outlook in patients with leptomeningeal metastases, a phase 2 trial suggests.

Results from the trial were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Unfortunately, when patients present with leptomeningeal disease, they usually have a poor prognosis. Their median survival is measured at 6-24 weeks,” commented lead study author Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, an adjunct assistant professor of oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a consultant medical oncologist at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin.

“While there may be some standard approaches for how we treat leptomeningeal disease, there are no universal standard therapies that are efficacious across solid tumor types,” Dr. Naidoo added.

With this in mind, Dr. Naidoo and colleagues tested systemic pembrolizumab in a trial of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors.

The trial closed early because of poor accrual, after enrolling 13 patients: 5 with breast carcinoma, 3 with high-grade glioma, 3 with non–small cell lung cancer, 1 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and 1 with head and neck squamous carcinoma. Nine patients (69%) had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy.
 

Response, safety, and biomarkers

Overall, five patients (38%) had a central nervous system response, as ascertained from radiologic response on MRI, cytologic response in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or clinical response in neurologic symptoms, Dr. Naidoo reported.

Two patients had a complete CNS response: a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, who was still alive at 3 years, and a patient with non–small cell lung cancer, who survived 9 months but succumbed to metastases elsewhere.

For the entire cohort, median CNS progression-free survival was 2.9 months, and median overall survival was 4.9 months.

“This is consistent with published prospective studies of systemic agents for leptomeningeal disease,” Dr. Naidoo pointed out. “Notably, even though numbers are small, we do see the tail-on-the-curve phenomenon in both of these survival curves, which is consistent with immune checkpoint blockade prospective studies.”

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 15.4%, and there were no grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events.

The number of patients was too small for formal correlational testing, but both patients who achieved a complete response developed immune-related adverse events.

The trial’s biomarker analyses showed that an aneuploidy assay using CSF tumor-derived DNA performed well at detecting leptomeningeal metastases, with sensitivity of 84.6%, compared with just 53.8% for CSF cytopathology (the current preferred method).

A multiplex assay of CSF cytokines identified similar baseline profiles for patients who went on to have responses and showed similar changes in profile (notably a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines) for the two patients who had complete responses.

Given the trial’s 38% CNS response rate, pembrolizumab “needs to be studied in larger populations of patients to confirm this result, but it could be used as a potential treatment option for patients with leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors,” Dr. Naidoo concluded. “Reassuringly, pembrolizumab was well tolerated, and this is extremely important in a patient population that is traditionally quite frail and in which other standard therapies that are used, such as high-dose methotrexate or intrathecal chemotherapy, are associated with far higher rates of toxicity.”
 

An unmet need

“Leptomeningeal metastasis is a strong unmet need, although its occurrence is fortunately quite rare,” commented Kim Margolin, MD, a clinical professor and medical oncologist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in this study.

Courtesy of City of Hope

The trial is noteworthy for showing activity of programmed death–1 (PD-1) blockade given only systemically and not with additional intrathecal therapy (as has been done in a concurrent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center) and for providing insight into various biomarkers, Dr. Margolin said in an interview.

“I cannot take a stand on author conclusions other than to agree it warrants further evaluation in carefully selected patients, and it would be great to compare something like peripheral PD-1 blockade alone versus in combination with intrathecal therapy versus a combination such as CTLA4 blockade plus PD-1 blockade such as our group and others have shown to have increased activity in CNS metastases over PD-1 block alone,” Dr. Margolin said.

“The drugs in this class are already approved, so there is no reason not to try them,” she noted.

However, patients with leptomeningeal metastases of melanoma, for example, are likely to have already received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

“So the settings in which off-the-shelf PD-1 blockade would be useful are extremely limited,” she concluded.

The current trial was funded by Merck, the National Institutes of Health, the Lung Cancer Foundation of America, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Johns Hopkins University Seed Grants. Dr. Naidoo disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Margolin disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Naidoo J et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 788.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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.

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.