Genitourinary Cancer

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant everolimus does not improve recurrence-free or overall survival in patients with papillary and chromophobe subtypes of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and is associated with higher rates of severe adverse events, compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• Non–clear cell RCC accounts for approximately 25% of RCC cases and includes various distinct tumor types such as papillary and chromophobe RCC. A common design flaw in clinical trials has been applying treatments effective in clear cell RCC to non–clear cell RCC subtypes without a strong biological rationale. The broad approval of drugs for RCC without considering subtype differences complicates treatment decisions.
• The EVEREST phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluated everolimus in the adjuvant setting, enrolling patients with either clear cell (n = 1248) or non–clear cell (n = 208) RCC at high risk for recurrence after resection. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either everolimus or placebo.
• To assess the benefits of everolimus in patients with non–clear cell RCC, this analysis focused on the subgroup of 109 patients with papillary RCC (median age, 60 years) and 99 patients with chromophobe RCC (median age, 51 years).
• The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, and the secondary outcome was overall survival. The median follow-up was 76 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the papillary RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was lower among patients receiving everolimus vs placebo (62% vs 70%), but this difference was not significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.61-2.33; P = .61).
• In the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar between the two groups — 79% for everolimus vs 77% for placebo (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.37-2.13; P = .79).
• Everolimus was also not associated with a significant overall survival benefit in patients with papillary RCC (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.67-3.24; P = .34) or chromophobe RCC (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.33-2.65; P = .89). In the papillary RCC subgroup, 5-year overall survival rates were slightly lower in the everolimus group than in the placebo group (76% vs 82%); however, in the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the rates were the same for both arms (89%).
• Patients treated with everolimus reported an increased incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events, compared with those treated with placebo (48% vs 9%). No treatment-related deaths were reported, but a significant number of patients — 54% with papillary RCC and 51% with chromophobe RCC — discontinued treatment early because of adverse events.

IN PRACTICE:

This secondary analysis “found that patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC did not benefit from treatment with everolimus in the adjuvant setting,” the authors wrote. “Our study highlights an area of unmet need in the kidney cancer field. It thus serves to provide a foundational background for future randomized clinical trials to address specific subgroups of RCC for risk mitigation strategies in the adjuvant setting.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shuchi Gulati, MD, MSc, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in JAMA Network Open, along with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The subgroup analyses were underpowered to detect a significant difference. Additionally, the study lacked a central pathology review to confirm non–clear cell histologies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by awards from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and National Clinical Trials Network. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant everolimus does not improve recurrence-free or overall survival in patients with papillary and chromophobe subtypes of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and is associated with higher rates of severe adverse events, compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• Non–clear cell RCC accounts for approximately 25% of RCC cases and includes various distinct tumor types such as papillary and chromophobe RCC. A common design flaw in clinical trials has been applying treatments effective in clear cell RCC to non–clear cell RCC subtypes without a strong biological rationale. The broad approval of drugs for RCC without considering subtype differences complicates treatment decisions.
• The EVEREST phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluated everolimus in the adjuvant setting, enrolling patients with either clear cell (n = 1248) or non–clear cell (n = 208) RCC at high risk for recurrence after resection. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either everolimus or placebo.
• To assess the benefits of everolimus in patients with non–clear cell RCC, this analysis focused on the subgroup of 109 patients with papillary RCC (median age, 60 years) and 99 patients with chromophobe RCC (median age, 51 years).
• The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, and the secondary outcome was overall survival. The median follow-up was 76 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the papillary RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was lower among patients receiving everolimus vs placebo (62% vs 70%), but this difference was not significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.61-2.33; P = .61).
• In the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar between the two groups — 79% for everolimus vs 77% for placebo (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.37-2.13; P = .79).
• Everolimus was also not associated with a significant overall survival benefit in patients with papillary RCC (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.67-3.24; P = .34) or chromophobe RCC (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.33-2.65; P = .89). In the papillary RCC subgroup, 5-year overall survival rates were slightly lower in the everolimus group than in the placebo group (76% vs 82%); however, in the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the rates were the same for both arms (89%).
• Patients treated with everolimus reported an increased incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events, compared with those treated with placebo (48% vs 9%). No treatment-related deaths were reported, but a significant number of patients — 54% with papillary RCC and 51% with chromophobe RCC — discontinued treatment early because of adverse events.

IN PRACTICE:

This secondary analysis “found that patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC did not benefit from treatment with everolimus in the adjuvant setting,” the authors wrote. “Our study highlights an area of unmet need in the kidney cancer field. It thus serves to provide a foundational background for future randomized clinical trials to address specific subgroups of RCC for risk mitigation strategies in the adjuvant setting.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shuchi Gulati, MD, MSc, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in JAMA Network Open, along with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The subgroup analyses were underpowered to detect a significant difference. Additionally, the study lacked a central pathology review to confirm non–clear cell histologies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by awards from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and National Clinical Trials Network. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adjuvant everolimus does not improve recurrence-free or overall survival in patients with papillary and chromophobe subtypes of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and is associated with higher rates of severe adverse events, compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• Non–clear cell RCC accounts for approximately 25% of RCC cases and includes various distinct tumor types such as papillary and chromophobe RCC. A common design flaw in clinical trials has been applying treatments effective in clear cell RCC to non–clear cell RCC subtypes without a strong biological rationale. The broad approval of drugs for RCC without considering subtype differences complicates treatment decisions.
• The EVEREST phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluated everolimus in the adjuvant setting, enrolling patients with either clear cell (n = 1248) or non–clear cell (n = 208) RCC at high risk for recurrence after resection. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either everolimus or placebo.
• To assess the benefits of everolimus in patients with non–clear cell RCC, this analysis focused on the subgroup of 109 patients with papillary RCC (median age, 60 years) and 99 patients with chromophobe RCC (median age, 51 years).
• The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, and the secondary outcome was overall survival. The median follow-up was 76 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the papillary RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was lower among patients receiving everolimus vs placebo (62% vs 70%), but this difference was not significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.61-2.33; P = .61).
• In the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar between the two groups — 79% for everolimus vs 77% for placebo (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.37-2.13; P = .79).
• Everolimus was also not associated with a significant overall survival benefit in patients with papillary RCC (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.67-3.24; P = .34) or chromophobe RCC (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.33-2.65; P = .89). In the papillary RCC subgroup, 5-year overall survival rates were slightly lower in the everolimus group than in the placebo group (76% vs 82%); however, in the chromophobe RCC subgroup, the rates were the same for both arms (89%).
• Patients treated with everolimus reported an increased incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events, compared with those treated with placebo (48% vs 9%). No treatment-related deaths were reported, but a significant number of patients — 54% with papillary RCC and 51% with chromophobe RCC — discontinued treatment early because of adverse events.

IN PRACTICE:

This secondary analysis “found that patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC did not benefit from treatment with everolimus in the adjuvant setting,” the authors wrote. “Our study highlights an area of unmet need in the kidney cancer field. It thus serves to provide a foundational background for future randomized clinical trials to address specific subgroups of RCC for risk mitigation strategies in the adjuvant setting.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shuchi Gulati, MD, MSc, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in JAMA Network Open, along with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The subgroup analyses were underpowered to detect a significant difference. Additionally, the study lacked a central pathology review to confirm non–clear cell histologies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by awards from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and National Clinical Trials Network. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Belzutifan demonstrated a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival and objective response rates in advanced renal cell carcinoma. At 18 months, 24% of participants on belzutifan were alive and progression free, compared with 8.3% on everolimus.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized, active-controlled LITESPARK-005 trial was conducted at 147 sites in six regions.
• The trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belzutifan with everolimus in 746 participants with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had disease progression after receiving immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. 
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily and were followed for a median of 18.4 months at the first interim analysis and of 25.7 months at the second interim analysis.
• The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, with the key secondary endpoint having been a confirmed objective response, defined as a complete or partial response.
• Dose modifications were allowed to manage adverse events, with belzutifan doses reduced to 80 mg and then to 40 mg daily if needed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival, with 24% of participants on belzutifan alive and progression free at 18 months, compared with 8.3% on everolimus (P = .002).
• The objective response rate was significantly higher in the belzutifan group (21.9%) compared with the everolimus group (3.5%) (P < .001).
• The median overall survival was 21.4 months for belzutifan and 18.1 months for everolimus, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; P = .20).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% of participants in the belzutifan group and in 62.5% in the everolimus group, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.9% and 14.7% of participants, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The LITESPARK-005 trial introduced [hypoxia-Inducible factor 2 alpha] inhibition as an active therapeutic mechanism and established belzutifan as a treatment option in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma after both immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, was one of four authors who contributed equally to the article, which was published on August 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the open-label design, which may introduce bias. The trial did not include a placebo group, and the follow-up period may not be sufficient to capture long-term outcomes. In addition, the study population was heavily pretreated, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader patient populations.
 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Choueiri disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Merck, the sponsor of the study, and other pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Belzutifan demonstrated a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival and objective response rates in advanced renal cell carcinoma. At 18 months, 24% of participants on belzutifan were alive and progression free, compared with 8.3% on everolimus.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized, active-controlled LITESPARK-005 trial was conducted at 147 sites in six regions.
• The trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belzutifan with everolimus in 746 participants with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had disease progression after receiving immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. 
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily and were followed for a median of 18.4 months at the first interim analysis and of 25.7 months at the second interim analysis.
• The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, with the key secondary endpoint having been a confirmed objective response, defined as a complete or partial response.
• Dose modifications were allowed to manage adverse events, with belzutifan doses reduced to 80 mg and then to 40 mg daily if needed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival, with 24% of participants on belzutifan alive and progression free at 18 months, compared with 8.3% on everolimus (P = .002).
• The objective response rate was significantly higher in the belzutifan group (21.9%) compared with the everolimus group (3.5%) (P < .001).
• The median overall survival was 21.4 months for belzutifan and 18.1 months for everolimus, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; P = .20).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% of participants in the belzutifan group and in 62.5% in the everolimus group, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.9% and 14.7% of participants, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The LITESPARK-005 trial introduced [hypoxia-Inducible factor 2 alpha] inhibition as an active therapeutic mechanism and established belzutifan as a treatment option in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma after both immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, was one of four authors who contributed equally to the article, which was published on August 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the open-label design, which may introduce bias. The trial did not include a placebo group, and the follow-up period may not be sufficient to capture long-term outcomes. In addition, the study population was heavily pretreated, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader patient populations.
 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Choueiri disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Merck, the sponsor of the study, and other pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Belzutifan demonstrated a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival and objective response rates in advanced renal cell carcinoma. At 18 months, 24% of participants on belzutifan were alive and progression free, compared with 8.3% on everolimus.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized, active-controlled LITESPARK-005 trial was conducted at 147 sites in six regions.
• The trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belzutifan with everolimus in 746 participants with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had disease progression after receiving immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. 
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily and were followed for a median of 18.4 months at the first interim analysis and of 25.7 months at the second interim analysis.
• The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, with the key secondary endpoint having been a confirmed objective response, defined as a complete or partial response.
• Dose modifications were allowed to manage adverse events, with belzutifan doses reduced to 80 mg and then to 40 mg daily if needed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus in progression-free survival, with 24% of participants on belzutifan alive and progression free at 18 months, compared with 8.3% on everolimus (P = .002).
• The objective response rate was significantly higher in the belzutifan group (21.9%) compared with the everolimus group (3.5%) (P < .001).
• The median overall survival was 21.4 months for belzutifan and 18.1 months for everolimus, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; P = .20).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% of participants in the belzutifan group and in 62.5% in the everolimus group, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.9% and 14.7% of participants, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The LITESPARK-005 trial introduced [hypoxia-Inducible factor 2 alpha] inhibition as an active therapeutic mechanism and established belzutifan as a treatment option in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma after both immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, was one of four authors who contributed equally to the article, which was published on August 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the open-label design, which may introduce bias. The trial did not include a placebo group, and the follow-up period may not be sufficient to capture long-term outcomes. In addition, the study population was heavily pretreated, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader patient populations.
 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Choueiri disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Merck, the sponsor of the study, and other pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a safe treatment option for patients with oligometastatic cancer, with only 0.5% of patients experiencing severe acute toxicities within 6 months, according to a large real-world analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Advances in cancer imaging have helped identify more patients with oligometastatic disease. Although the standard treatment approach typically involves systemic therapy such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy, SBRT has increasingly become an option for these patients. However, the toxicities associated with SBRT remain less clear.
• OligoCare, a European, prospective, registry-based, single-arm observational study, aims to provide real-world outcomes among patients with oligometastatic cancer who received SBRT. In this analysis, the researchers evaluated early toxicities among 1468 patients with different primary cancers — non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 19.7%), colorectal cancer (20%), breast cancer (15.5%), and prostate cancer (44.8%).
• The primary outcome was acute toxicities, including new malignancies and deaths, within 6 months of initiating SBRT.
• Overall, 527 (35.9%) patients received concomitant systemic treatment and 828 (56%) had de novo oligometastatic disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, though, only eight patients (0.5%) experienced acute SBRT-related toxicity of grade 3 and above within 6 months; two events, however, were fatal (pneumonitis and cerebral hemorrhage), and both occurred in patients with NSCLC.
• The other six grade 3 events included one instance of each of the following: empyema, pneumonia, radiation pneumonitis, radiation skin injury, decreased appetite, and bone pain. Two of these events occurred in patients with NSCLC, two in patients with breast cancer, one in patients with colorectal cancer, and one in patients with prostate cancer.
• New primary malignancies were reported in 13 (0.9%) patients, which included bladder cancer (n = 3), nonmelanoma skin cancer (n = 3), and leukemia (n = 1).
• Overall, 43 (2.9%) patients died within 6 months, most from their primary cancer (58.1%).

IN PRACTICE:

Low rates of early acute toxicities reported in this real-world study help confirm the safety of SBRT in the treatment of oligometastases, the authors concluded. However, “some anatomical sites might be associated with an increased risk of even severe or fatal toxicities.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Filippo Alongi, Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar di Valpolicella, Italy, and University of Brescia, also in Italy, was published online in Radiotherapy & Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

Some limitations of the study include the nonrandomized design and potential variability in patient selection criteria, treatment doses, and schedules.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. Two authors declared receiving speaker or lecture honoraria or consultation fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a safe treatment option for patients with oligometastatic cancer, with only 0.5% of patients experiencing severe acute toxicities within 6 months, according to a large real-world analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Advances in cancer imaging have helped identify more patients with oligometastatic disease. Although the standard treatment approach typically involves systemic therapy such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy, SBRT has increasingly become an option for these patients. However, the toxicities associated with SBRT remain less clear.
• OligoCare, a European, prospective, registry-based, single-arm observational study, aims to provide real-world outcomes among patients with oligometastatic cancer who received SBRT. In this analysis, the researchers evaluated early toxicities among 1468 patients with different primary cancers — non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 19.7%), colorectal cancer (20%), breast cancer (15.5%), and prostate cancer (44.8%).
• The primary outcome was acute toxicities, including new malignancies and deaths, within 6 months of initiating SBRT.
• Overall, 527 (35.9%) patients received concomitant systemic treatment and 828 (56%) had de novo oligometastatic disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, though, only eight patients (0.5%) experienced acute SBRT-related toxicity of grade 3 and above within 6 months; two events, however, were fatal (pneumonitis and cerebral hemorrhage), and both occurred in patients with NSCLC.
• The other six grade 3 events included one instance of each of the following: empyema, pneumonia, radiation pneumonitis, radiation skin injury, decreased appetite, and bone pain. Two of these events occurred in patients with NSCLC, two in patients with breast cancer, one in patients with colorectal cancer, and one in patients with prostate cancer.
• New primary malignancies were reported in 13 (0.9%) patients, which included bladder cancer (n = 3), nonmelanoma skin cancer (n = 3), and leukemia (n = 1).
• Overall, 43 (2.9%) patients died within 6 months, most from their primary cancer (58.1%).

IN PRACTICE:

Low rates of early acute toxicities reported in this real-world study help confirm the safety of SBRT in the treatment of oligometastases, the authors concluded. However, “some anatomical sites might be associated with an increased risk of even severe or fatal toxicities.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Filippo Alongi, Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar di Valpolicella, Italy, and University of Brescia, also in Italy, was published online in Radiotherapy & Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

Some limitations of the study include the nonrandomized design and potential variability in patient selection criteria, treatment doses, and schedules.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. Two authors declared receiving speaker or lecture honoraria or consultation fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a safe treatment option for patients with oligometastatic cancer, with only 0.5% of patients experiencing severe acute toxicities within 6 months, according to a large real-world analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Advances in cancer imaging have helped identify more patients with oligometastatic disease. Although the standard treatment approach typically involves systemic therapy such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy, SBRT has increasingly become an option for these patients. However, the toxicities associated with SBRT remain less clear.
• OligoCare, a European, prospective, registry-based, single-arm observational study, aims to provide real-world outcomes among patients with oligometastatic cancer who received SBRT. In this analysis, the researchers evaluated early toxicities among 1468 patients with different primary cancers — non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 19.7%), colorectal cancer (20%), breast cancer (15.5%), and prostate cancer (44.8%).
• The primary outcome was acute toxicities, including new malignancies and deaths, within 6 months of initiating SBRT.
• Overall, 527 (35.9%) patients received concomitant systemic treatment and 828 (56%) had de novo oligometastatic disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, though, only eight patients (0.5%) experienced acute SBRT-related toxicity of grade 3 and above within 6 months; two events, however, were fatal (pneumonitis and cerebral hemorrhage), and both occurred in patients with NSCLC.
• The other six grade 3 events included one instance of each of the following: empyema, pneumonia, radiation pneumonitis, radiation skin injury, decreased appetite, and bone pain. Two of these events occurred in patients with NSCLC, two in patients with breast cancer, one in patients with colorectal cancer, and one in patients with prostate cancer.
• New primary malignancies were reported in 13 (0.9%) patients, which included bladder cancer (n = 3), nonmelanoma skin cancer (n = 3), and leukemia (n = 1).
• Overall, 43 (2.9%) patients died within 6 months, most from their primary cancer (58.1%).

IN PRACTICE:

Low rates of early acute toxicities reported in this real-world study help confirm the safety of SBRT in the treatment of oligometastases, the authors concluded. However, “some anatomical sites might be associated with an increased risk of even severe or fatal toxicities.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Filippo Alongi, Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar di Valpolicella, Italy, and University of Brescia, also in Italy, was published online in Radiotherapy & Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

Some limitations of the study include the nonrandomized design and potential variability in patient selection criteria, treatment doses, and schedules.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. Two authors declared receiving speaker or lecture honoraria or consultation fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.