Genitourinary Cancer

The World Health Organization’s call for the elimination of cervical cancer worldwide is a laudable goal and one that many organizations across the globe have endorsed.

Yet some would say that this goal goes only halfway, and that the real finish line should be to eliminate all vaccine-type HPV infections that cause multiple cancers, in men as well as women.

One proponent of sweeping HPV prevention is Mark Jit, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

In the long run, the WHO’s call to eliminate cervical cancer is “insufficiently ambitious” he writes in a special issue of Preventive Medicine.

“The point is, if you are trying to eliminate cervical cancer, you’ve run part of the race,” he said.

“But why not run that extra third and get rid of the virus, then you never have to worry about it again,” Dr. Jit elaborated in an interview.

Winning that race, however, is dependent on a gender-neutral HPV vaccination policy, he pointed out.

At present, the WHO advocates only for female vaccination and screening.

Some countries have already taken the matter into their own hands. As of May 2020, 33 countries and four territories have gender-neutral vaccination schedules.

Others are also calling for gender-neutral HPV vaccination to achieve a far wider public health good.

“I completely agree that our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all HPV-related cancers – but we will require gender-neutral vaccination to do it,” says Anna Giuliano, PhD, professor and director, Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“The reason why WHO started with cervical cancer elimination is that it is likely to be the first cancer that we can achieve this with, and if you look internationally, cervical cancer has the highest burden,” Dr. Giuliano told this news organization.

“But it’s important to understand that it’s not just females who are at risk for HPV disease, men have serious consequences from HPV infection, too,” she said.

In fact, rates of HPV-related cancers and mortality in men exceed those for women in countries that have effective cervical cancer screening programs, she points out in an editorial in the same issue of Preventive Medicine.

Rates in men are driven largely by HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, but not only, Dr. Giuliano noted in an interview.

Rates of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) are at least as high as rates of cervical cancer among women living in the poorest countries of the world, where 85% of cervical cancer deaths now occur, she noted. If MSM are HIV positive, rates of anal cancer are even higher.
 

Unethical to leave males out?

Arguments in favor of gender-neutral HPV vaccination abound, but the most compelling among them is that society really should give males an opportunity to receive direct protection against all types of HPV infection, Dr. Giuliano commented.

Indeed, in the U.K., experts argue that it is unethical to leave males out of achieving direct protection against HPV infection, she noted.

With a female-only vaccination strategy, “males are only protected if they stay in a population where there are high female vaccination rates – and very few countries have achieved high rates of vaccine dissemination and have sustained it,” she pointed out. But that applies only to heterosexual men, who develop some herd immunity from exposure to vaccinated females; this is not the case for MSM.

On a pragmatic note, a vaccine program that targets a larger number of people against HPV infection – which would be achieved with gender-neutral vaccination – is going to be more resilient against temporary changes in vaccine uptake, such as what has happened over the past year.

“During the pandemic, people may have had virtual clinic visits, but they haven’t had in-person visits, which is what you need for vaccination,” Dr. Giuliano pointed out. “So over the past year, there has been a major drop in vaccination rates,” she said.
 

Eliminating cervical cancer

Currently, the WHO plans for eliminating cervical cancer involve a strategy of vaccinating 90% of girls by the age of 15, screening 70% of women with a high performance test by the age of 35 and again at 45, and treating 90% of women with cervical disease – the so-called “90-70-90” strategy.

Dr. Jit agrees that very high levels of vaccine coverage would eradicate the HPV types causing almost all cases of cervical cancer. The same strategy would also sharply reduce the need for preventive measures in the future.

However, as Dr. Jit argues, 90% female-only coverage will not be sufficient to eliminate HPV 16 transmission, although 90% coverage in both males and females – namely a gender-neutral strategy – might. To show this, Dr. Jit and colleagues used the HPV-ADVISE transmission model in India.

Results from this modeling exercise suggest that 90% coverage of both sexes would bring the prevalence of HPV 16 close to elimination, defined as reducing the prevalence of HPV 16 to below 10 per 100,000 in the population.

In addition, because even at this low level, HPV transmission can be sustained in a small group of sex workers and their clients, achieving 95% coverage of 10-year-old girls who might become female sex workers in the future will likely achieve the goal of HPV 16 elimination, as Dr. Jit suggests.
 

OPSCC elimination

Elimination of another HPV-related cancer, oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs), is discussed in another paper in the same journal.

HPV-related OPSCCs are mostly associated specifically with HPV 16.

There is currently an epidemic of this cancer among middle-aged men in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; incidence rates have tripled over the past 30 years, note Tuomas Lehtinen, PhD, FICAN-MID, Tampere, Finland and colleagues.

They propose a two-step action plan – gender-neutral vaccination in adolescent boys and girls, and a screening program for adults born in 1995 or earlier.

The first step is already underway, and the recent implementation of school-based HPV vaccination programs in the Nordic countries is predicted to gradually decrease the incidence of HPV-related OPSCCs, they write.

“Even if HPV vaccination does not cure established infections, it can prevent re-infection/recurrence of associated lesions in 45% to 65% of individuals with anal or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” the authors write, “and there is high VE (vaccine efficacy) against oropharyngeal HPV infections as well.”

Furthermore, there is a tenfold relative risk of tonsillar and base of tongue cancers in spouses of women diagnosed with invasive anogenital cancer, researchers also point out. “This underlines the importance of breaking genito-oral transmission chains.”

The screening of adults born in 1995 for HPV-related OPSCC is still at a planning stage.

In a proof-of-concept study for the stepwise prevention of OPSCC, the authors suggest that target birth cohorts first be stratified and then randomized into serological HPV 16 E6 antibody screening or no screening. HPV 16 antibody-positive women and their spouses then could be invited for HPV vaccination followed by 2 HPV DNA tests.

Unscreened women and their spouses would serve as population-based controls. “Even if gender-neutral vaccination results in rapid elimination of HPV circulation, the effects of persistent, [prevalent] HPV infections on the most HPV-associated tonsillar cancer will continue for decades after HPV circulation has stopped,” the authors predict.

The Jit study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institute for Health. The Lehtinen study was supported by grants from the Finnish Cancer Society and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation. Dr. Jit and Dr. Lehtinen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Giuliano serves on the advisory board for Merck, which markets the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

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

The World Health Organization’s call for the elimination of cervical cancer worldwide is a laudable goal and one that many organizations across the globe have endorsed.

Yet some would say that this goal goes only halfway, and that the real finish line should be to eliminate all vaccine-type HPV infections that cause multiple cancers, in men as well as women.

One proponent of sweeping HPV prevention is Mark Jit, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

In the long run, the WHO’s call to eliminate cervical cancer is “insufficiently ambitious” he writes in a special issue of Preventive Medicine.

“The point is, if you are trying to eliminate cervical cancer, you’ve run part of the race,” he said.

“But why not run that extra third and get rid of the virus, then you never have to worry about it again,” Dr. Jit elaborated in an interview.

Winning that race, however, is dependent on a gender-neutral HPV vaccination policy, he pointed out.

At present, the WHO advocates only for female vaccination and screening.

Some countries have already taken the matter into their own hands. As of May 2020, 33 countries and four territories have gender-neutral vaccination schedules.

Others are also calling for gender-neutral HPV vaccination to achieve a far wider public health good.

“I completely agree that our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all HPV-related cancers – but we will require gender-neutral vaccination to do it,” says Anna Giuliano, PhD, professor and director, Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“The reason why WHO started with cervical cancer elimination is that it is likely to be the first cancer that we can achieve this with, and if you look internationally, cervical cancer has the highest burden,” Dr. Giuliano told this news organization.

“But it’s important to understand that it’s not just females who are at risk for HPV disease, men have serious consequences from HPV infection, too,” she said.

In fact, rates of HPV-related cancers and mortality in men exceed those for women in countries that have effective cervical cancer screening programs, she points out in an editorial in the same issue of Preventive Medicine.

Rates in men are driven largely by HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, but not only, Dr. Giuliano noted in an interview.

Rates of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) are at least as high as rates of cervical cancer among women living in the poorest countries of the world, where 85% of cervical cancer deaths now occur, she noted. If MSM are HIV positive, rates of anal cancer are even higher.
 

Unethical to leave males out?

Arguments in favor of gender-neutral HPV vaccination abound, but the most compelling among them is that society really should give males an opportunity to receive direct protection against all types of HPV infection, Dr. Giuliano commented.

Indeed, in the U.K., experts argue that it is unethical to leave males out of achieving direct protection against HPV infection, she noted.

With a female-only vaccination strategy, “males are only protected if they stay in a population where there are high female vaccination rates – and very few countries have achieved high rates of vaccine dissemination and have sustained it,” she pointed out. But that applies only to heterosexual men, who develop some herd immunity from exposure to vaccinated females; this is not the case for MSM.

On a pragmatic note, a vaccine program that targets a larger number of people against HPV infection – which would be achieved with gender-neutral vaccination – is going to be more resilient against temporary changes in vaccine uptake, such as what has happened over the past year.

“During the pandemic, people may have had virtual clinic visits, but they haven’t had in-person visits, which is what you need for vaccination,” Dr. Giuliano pointed out. “So over the past year, there has been a major drop in vaccination rates,” she said.
 

Eliminating cervical cancer

Currently, the WHO plans for eliminating cervical cancer involve a strategy of vaccinating 90% of girls by the age of 15, screening 70% of women with a high performance test by the age of 35 and again at 45, and treating 90% of women with cervical disease – the so-called “90-70-90” strategy.

Dr. Jit agrees that very high levels of vaccine coverage would eradicate the HPV types causing almost all cases of cervical cancer. The same strategy would also sharply reduce the need for preventive measures in the future.

However, as Dr. Jit argues, 90% female-only coverage will not be sufficient to eliminate HPV 16 transmission, although 90% coverage in both males and females – namely a gender-neutral strategy – might. To show this, Dr. Jit and colleagues used the HPV-ADVISE transmission model in India.

Results from this modeling exercise suggest that 90% coverage of both sexes would bring the prevalence of HPV 16 close to elimination, defined as reducing the prevalence of HPV 16 to below 10 per 100,000 in the population.

In addition, because even at this low level, HPV transmission can be sustained in a small group of sex workers and their clients, achieving 95% coverage of 10-year-old girls who might become female sex workers in the future will likely achieve the goal of HPV 16 elimination, as Dr. Jit suggests.
 

OPSCC elimination

Elimination of another HPV-related cancer, oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs), is discussed in another paper in the same journal.

HPV-related OPSCCs are mostly associated specifically with HPV 16.

There is currently an epidemic of this cancer among middle-aged men in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; incidence rates have tripled over the past 30 years, note Tuomas Lehtinen, PhD, FICAN-MID, Tampere, Finland and colleagues.

They propose a two-step action plan – gender-neutral vaccination in adolescent boys and girls, and a screening program for adults born in 1995 or earlier.

The first step is already underway, and the recent implementation of school-based HPV vaccination programs in the Nordic countries is predicted to gradually decrease the incidence of HPV-related OPSCCs, they write.

“Even if HPV vaccination does not cure established infections, it can prevent re-infection/recurrence of associated lesions in 45% to 65% of individuals with anal or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” the authors write, “and there is high VE (vaccine efficacy) against oropharyngeal HPV infections as well.”

Furthermore, there is a tenfold relative risk of tonsillar and base of tongue cancers in spouses of women diagnosed with invasive anogenital cancer, researchers also point out. “This underlines the importance of breaking genito-oral transmission chains.”

The screening of adults born in 1995 for HPV-related OPSCC is still at a planning stage.

In a proof-of-concept study for the stepwise prevention of OPSCC, the authors suggest that target birth cohorts first be stratified and then randomized into serological HPV 16 E6 antibody screening or no screening. HPV 16 antibody-positive women and their spouses then could be invited for HPV vaccination followed by 2 HPV DNA tests.

Unscreened women and their spouses would serve as population-based controls. “Even if gender-neutral vaccination results in rapid elimination of HPV circulation, the effects of persistent, [prevalent] HPV infections on the most HPV-associated tonsillar cancer will continue for decades after HPV circulation has stopped,” the authors predict.

The Jit study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institute for Health. The Lehtinen study was supported by grants from the Finnish Cancer Society and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation. Dr. Jit and Dr. Lehtinen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Giuliano serves on the advisory board for Merck, which markets the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

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

The World Health Organization’s call for the elimination of cervical cancer worldwide is a laudable goal and one that many organizations across the globe have endorsed.

Yet some would say that this goal goes only halfway, and that the real finish line should be to eliminate all vaccine-type HPV infections that cause multiple cancers, in men as well as women.

One proponent of sweeping HPV prevention is Mark Jit, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

In the long run, the WHO’s call to eliminate cervical cancer is “insufficiently ambitious” he writes in a special issue of Preventive Medicine.

“The point is, if you are trying to eliminate cervical cancer, you’ve run part of the race,” he said.

“But why not run that extra third and get rid of the virus, then you never have to worry about it again,” Dr. Jit elaborated in an interview.

Winning that race, however, is dependent on a gender-neutral HPV vaccination policy, he pointed out.

At present, the WHO advocates only for female vaccination and screening.

Some countries have already taken the matter into their own hands. As of May 2020, 33 countries and four territories have gender-neutral vaccination schedules.

Others are also calling for gender-neutral HPV vaccination to achieve a far wider public health good.

“I completely agree that our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all HPV-related cancers – but we will require gender-neutral vaccination to do it,” says Anna Giuliano, PhD, professor and director, Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“The reason why WHO started with cervical cancer elimination is that it is likely to be the first cancer that we can achieve this with, and if you look internationally, cervical cancer has the highest burden,” Dr. Giuliano told this news organization.

“But it’s important to understand that it’s not just females who are at risk for HPV disease, men have serious consequences from HPV infection, too,” she said.

In fact, rates of HPV-related cancers and mortality in men exceed those for women in countries that have effective cervical cancer screening programs, she points out in an editorial in the same issue of Preventive Medicine.

Rates in men are driven largely by HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, but not only, Dr. Giuliano noted in an interview.

Rates of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) are at least as high as rates of cervical cancer among women living in the poorest countries of the world, where 85% of cervical cancer deaths now occur, she noted. If MSM are HIV positive, rates of anal cancer are even higher.
 

Unethical to leave males out?

Arguments in favor of gender-neutral HPV vaccination abound, but the most compelling among them is that society really should give males an opportunity to receive direct protection against all types of HPV infection, Dr. Giuliano commented.

Indeed, in the U.K., experts argue that it is unethical to leave males out of achieving direct protection against HPV infection, she noted.

With a female-only vaccination strategy, “males are only protected if they stay in a population where there are high female vaccination rates – and very few countries have achieved high rates of vaccine dissemination and have sustained it,” she pointed out. But that applies only to heterosexual men, who develop some herd immunity from exposure to vaccinated females; this is not the case for MSM.

On a pragmatic note, a vaccine program that targets a larger number of people against HPV infection – which would be achieved with gender-neutral vaccination – is going to be more resilient against temporary changes in vaccine uptake, such as what has happened over the past year.

“During the pandemic, people may have had virtual clinic visits, but they haven’t had in-person visits, which is what you need for vaccination,” Dr. Giuliano pointed out. “So over the past year, there has been a major drop in vaccination rates,” she said.
 

Eliminating cervical cancer

Currently, the WHO plans for eliminating cervical cancer involve a strategy of vaccinating 90% of girls by the age of 15, screening 70% of women with a high performance test by the age of 35 and again at 45, and treating 90% of women with cervical disease – the so-called “90-70-90” strategy.

Dr. Jit agrees that very high levels of vaccine coverage would eradicate the HPV types causing almost all cases of cervical cancer. The same strategy would also sharply reduce the need for preventive measures in the future.

However, as Dr. Jit argues, 90% female-only coverage will not be sufficient to eliminate HPV 16 transmission, although 90% coverage in both males and females – namely a gender-neutral strategy – might. To show this, Dr. Jit and colleagues used the HPV-ADVISE transmission model in India.

Results from this modeling exercise suggest that 90% coverage of both sexes would bring the prevalence of HPV 16 close to elimination, defined as reducing the prevalence of HPV 16 to below 10 per 100,000 in the population.

In addition, because even at this low level, HPV transmission can be sustained in a small group of sex workers and their clients, achieving 95% coverage of 10-year-old girls who might become female sex workers in the future will likely achieve the goal of HPV 16 elimination, as Dr. Jit suggests.
 

OPSCC elimination

Elimination of another HPV-related cancer, oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs), is discussed in another paper in the same journal.

HPV-related OPSCCs are mostly associated specifically with HPV 16.

There is currently an epidemic of this cancer among middle-aged men in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; incidence rates have tripled over the past 30 years, note Tuomas Lehtinen, PhD, FICAN-MID, Tampere, Finland and colleagues.

They propose a two-step action plan – gender-neutral vaccination in adolescent boys and girls, and a screening program for adults born in 1995 or earlier.

The first step is already underway, and the recent implementation of school-based HPV vaccination programs in the Nordic countries is predicted to gradually decrease the incidence of HPV-related OPSCCs, they write.

“Even if HPV vaccination does not cure established infections, it can prevent re-infection/recurrence of associated lesions in 45% to 65% of individuals with anal or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” the authors write, “and there is high VE (vaccine efficacy) against oropharyngeal HPV infections as well.”

Furthermore, there is a tenfold relative risk of tonsillar and base of tongue cancers in spouses of women diagnosed with invasive anogenital cancer, researchers also point out. “This underlines the importance of breaking genito-oral transmission chains.”

The screening of adults born in 1995 for HPV-related OPSCC is still at a planning stage.

In a proof-of-concept study for the stepwise prevention of OPSCC, the authors suggest that target birth cohorts first be stratified and then randomized into serological HPV 16 E6 antibody screening or no screening. HPV 16 antibody-positive women and their spouses then could be invited for HPV vaccination followed by 2 HPV DNA tests.

Unscreened women and their spouses would serve as population-based controls. “Even if gender-neutral vaccination results in rapid elimination of HPV circulation, the effects of persistent, [prevalent] HPV infections on the most HPV-associated tonsillar cancer will continue for decades after HPV circulation has stopped,” the authors predict.

The Jit study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institute for Health. The Lehtinen study was supported by grants from the Finnish Cancer Society and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation. Dr. Jit and Dr. Lehtinen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Giuliano serves on the advisory board for Merck, which markets the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips often fail to correctly identify rare variants, a large study suggests.

In fact, SNP chips are “extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants,” and a positive result for such a variant “is more likely to be wrong than right,” researchers reported in the BMJ.

The authors explained that SNP chips are “DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome.” Although SNP chips have proven accurate in identifying common variants, past reports have suggested that SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare variants.

To gain more insight, Caroline Wright, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues conducted a large study.

The researchers analyzed data on 49,908 people from the UK Biobank who had SNP chip and next-generation sequencing results, as well as an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.

The researchers compared the SNP chip and sequencing results. They also selected rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and they assessed BRCA-related cancers in participants using cancer registry data.
 

Largest evaluation of SNP chips

SNP chips performed well for common variants, the researchers found. Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value all exceeded 99% for 108,574 common variants.

For rare variants, SNP chips performed poorly, with a positive-predictive value of 16% for variants with a frequency below 0.001% in the UK Biobank.

“The study provides the largest evaluation of the performance of SNP chips for genotyping genetic variants at different frequencies in the population, particularly focusing on very rare variants,” Dr. Wright said. “The biggest surprise was how poorly the SNP chips we evaluated performed for rare variants.”

Dr. Wright noted that there is an inherent problem built into using SNP chip technology to genotype very rare variants.

“The SNP chip technology relies on clustering data from multiple individuals in order to determine what genotype each individual has at a specific position in their genome,” Dr. Wright explained. “Although this method works very well for common variants, the rarer the variant, the harder it is to distinguish from experimental noise.”
 

False positives and cancer: ‘Don’t trust the results’

The researchers found that, for rare BRCA variants (frequency below 0.01%), SNP chips had a sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3%, negative-predictive value of 99.9%, and positive-predictive value of 4.2%.

Rates of BRCA-related cancers in patients with positive SNP chip results were similar to rates in age-matched control subjects because “the vast majority of variants were false positives,” the researchers noted.

“If these variants are incorrectly genotyped – that is, false positives detected – a woman could be offered screening or even prophylactic surgery inappropriately when she is more likely to be at population background risk [for BRCA-related cancers],” Dr. Wright said.

“For very-rare-disease–causing genetic variants, don’t trust the results from SNP chips; for example, those from direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Never use them to guide clinical action without diagnostic validation,” she added.

Heather Hampel, a genetic counselor and researcher at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, agreed.

“Positive results on SNP-based tests need to be confirmed by medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology,” she said. “Negative results on an SNP- based test cannot be considered to rule out mutations in BRCA1/2 or other cancer-susceptibility genes, so individuals with strong personal and family histories of cancer should be seen by a genetic counselor to consider medical-grade genetic testing using a sequencing technology.”

Practicing oncologists can trust patients’ prior germline genetic test results if the testing was performed in a cancer genetics clinic, which uses sequencing-based technologies, Ms. Hampel noted.

“If the test was performed before 2013, there are likely new genes that have been discovered for which their patient was not tested, and repeat testing may be warranted,” Ms. Hampel said. “A referral to a cancer genetic counselor would be appropriate.”

Ms. Hampel disclosed relationships with Genome Medical, GI OnDemand, Invitae Genetics, and Promega. Dr. Wright and her coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The group’s research was conducted using the UK Biobank and the University of Exeter High-Performance Computing, with funding from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

An initiative designed to improve sharing of patient data may provide “tremendous benefits” in cancer care and research, according to authors of a review article.

The goals of the initiative, called Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), were to identify the data elements in electronic health records that are “essential” for making treatment decisions and create “a standardized computable data format” that would improve the exchange of data across EHRs, according to the mCODE website.

Travis J. Osterman, DO, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues described the mCODE initiative in a review published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

At present, commercially available EHRs are poorly designed to support modern oncology workflow, requiring laborious data entry and lacking a common library of oncology-specific discrete data elements. As an example, most EHRs poorly support the needs of precision oncology and clinical genetics, since next-generation sequencing and genetic test results are almost universally reported in PDF files.

In addition, basic, operational oncology data (e.g., cancer staging, adverse event documentation, response to treatment, etc.) are captured in EHRs primarily as an unstructured narrative.

Computable, analytical data are found for only the small percentage of patients in clinical trials. Even then, some degree of manual data abstraction is regularly required.

Interoperability of EHRs between practices and health care institutions is often so poor that the transfer of basic cancer-related information as analyzable data is difficult or even impossible.
 

Making progress: The 21st Century Cures Act

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has a more than 15-year history of developing oncology data standards. Unfortunately, progress in implementing these standards has been glacially slow. Impediments have included:

• A lack of conformance with clinical workflows.
• Failure to test standards on specific-use cases during pilot testing.
• A focus on data exchange, rather than the practical impediments to data entry.
• Poor engagement with EHR vendors in distributing clinical information modules with an oncology-specific focus
• Instability of data interoperability technologies.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, mandated improvement in the interoperability of health information through the development of data standards and application programming interfaces.

In early 2020, final rules for implementation required technology vendors to employ application programming interfaces using a single interoperability resource. In addition, payers were required to use the United States Core Data for Interoperability Standard for data exchange. These requirements were intended to provide patients with access to their own health care data “without special effort.”

As a fortunate byproduct, since EHR vendors are required to implement application program interfaces using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Specification, the final rules could enable systems like mCODE to be more easily integrated with existing EHRs.
 

Lessons from CancerLinQ

ASCO created the health technology platform CancerLinQ in 2014, envisioning that it could become an oncology-focused learning health system – a system in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, allowing knowledge to be put into practice.

CancerLinQ extracts data from EHRs and other sources via direct software connections. CancerLinQ then aggregates, harmonizes, and normalizes the data in a cloud-based environment.

The data are available to participating practices for quality improvement in patient care and secondary research. In 2020, records of cancer patients in the CancerLinQ database surpassed 2 million.

CancerLinQ has been successful. However, because of the nature of the EHR ecosystem and the scope and variability of data capture by clinicians, supporting a true learning health system has proven to be a formidable task. Postprocessing manual review using trained human curators is laborious and unsustainable.

The CancerLinQ experience illustrated that basic cancer-pertinent data should be standardized in the EHR and collected prospectively.
 

The mCODE model

The mCODE initiative seeks to facilitate progress in care quality, clinical research, and health care policy by developing and maintaining a standard, computable, interoperable data format.

Guiding principles that were adopted early in mCODE’s development included:

• A collaborative, noncommercial, use case–driven developmental model.
• Iterative processes.
• User-driven development, refinement, and maintenance.
• Low ongoing maintenance requirements.

A foundational moment in mCODE’s development involved achieving consensus among stakeholders that the project would fail if EHR vendors required additional data entry by users.

After pilot work, a real-world endpoints project, working-group deliberation, public comment, and refinement, the final data standard included six primary domains: patient, disease, laboratory data/vital signs, genomics, treatment, and outcome.

Each domain is further divided into several concepts with specific associated data elements. The data elements are modeled into value sets that specify the possible values for the data element.

To test mCODE, eight organizations representing oncology EHR vendors, standards developers, and research organizations participated in a cancer interoperability track. The comments helped refine mCODE version 1.0, which was released in March 2020 and is accessible via the mCODE website.

Additions will likely be reviewed by a technical review group after external piloting of new use cases.
 

Innovation, not regulation

Every interaction between a patient and care provider yields information that could lead to improved safety and better outcomes. To be successful, the information must be collected in a computable format so it can be aggregated with data from other patients, analyzed without manual curation, and shared through interoperable systems. Those data should also be secure enough to protect the privacy of individual patients.

mCODE is a consensus data standard for oncology that provides an infrastructure to share patient data between oncology practices and health care systems while promising little to no additional data entry on the part of clinicians. Adoption by sites will be critical, however.

Publishing the standard through the HL7 FHIR technology demonstrated to EHR vendors and regulatory agencies the stability of HL7, an essential requirement for its incorporation into software.

EHR vendors and others are engaged in the CodeX HL7 FHIR Accelerator to design projects to expand and/or modify mCODE. Their creativity and innovativeness via the external advisory mCODE council and/or CodeX will be encouraged to help mCODE reach its full potential.

As part of CodeX, the Community of Practice, an open forum for end users, was established to provide regular updates about mCODE-related initiatives and use cases to solicit in-progress input, according to Robert S. Miller, MD, medical director of CancerLinQ and an author of the mCODE review.

For mCODE to be embraced by all stakeholders, there should be no additional regulations. By engaging stakeholders in an enterprise that supports innovation and collaboration – without additional regulation – mCODE could maximize the potential of EHRs that, until now, have assisted us only marginally in accomplishing those goals.

mCODE is a joint venture of ASCO/CancerLinQ, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation, the MITRE Corporation, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Dr. Osterman disclosed a grant from the National Cancer Institute and relationships with Infostratix, eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Microsoft. Dr. Miller and the third review author disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

The antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin is superior to chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma, primary results of the EV-301 trial show.

Findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 393).

“Treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors is challenging. Overall survival is short, and therapeutic options are also limited,” noted first author Thomas Powles, MD, a professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London. “Chemotherapy is being used as the global standard of care, but randomized trials supporting these treatment choices are actually lacking. In this setting, new therapeutic agents supported by randomized trials are needed.”

Patients enrolled in EV-301 (NCT03474107), an international open-label, phase 3 trial, had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, had received platinum-based chemotherapy, and had experienced progression during or after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (anti–PD1/PD-L1 therapy).

The trial met its primary endpoint, showing that, relative to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin reduced the risk of death by 30%, giving patients nearly 4 additional months of life. The toxicity profile was similar to that seen in earlier trials and was manageable.

“Enfortumab vedotin is the first drug, beyond chemotherapy and immunotherapy, to show a significant survival advantage in previously treated urothelial cancer. This is a big step in the right direction for patients with advanced urothelial cancer, where treatment options remain quite limited,” Dr. Powles maintained.

The drug is also showing promising activity when used in the immunotherapy-treated but cisplatin-ineligible patients in the second cohort of the predecessor EV-201 trial, reported at the symposium as well (Abstract 394), he noted. “I hope that, as we move it earlier, we will show better efficacy.”

The Food and Drug Administration granted enfortumab vedotin accelerated approval as third-line therapy in 2019 on the basis of data from the EV-201 trial’s first cohort. With these new data from both trials, the manufacturers have submitted applications to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval, and to expand the current label to include cisplatin-ineligible patients.
 

Trial details

In EV-301, a total of 608 patients were randomized evenly to enfortumab vedotin (an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, a cell-adhesion molecule highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma) or the physician’s choice among three standard chemotherapy options having similar efficacy (docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine).

“None of these chemotherapy drugs have spectacular response rates, and the overall survival is best described as modest,” Dr. Powles said.

He reported results of the trial’s planned interim analysis, which became the primary analysis because the primary endpoint was positive. Specifically, median overall survival was 12.9 months with enfortumab vedotin and 9.0 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .00142). Benefit was similar across most patient subgroups.

The enfortumab vedotin group also had a better median progression-free survival (5.6 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.62; P < .00001) and investigator-assessed overall response rate (40.6% vs. 17.9%; P < .001).

The rate of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 51% with enfortumab vedotin and 50% with chemotherapy. The former was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse maculopapular rash (7% vs. 0%), whereas the latter was associated with higher rates of grade 3 or worse decreased neutrophil count (13% vs. 6%), decreased white blood cell count (7% vs. 1%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs. 1%).

Regarding events of special interest, enfortumab vedotin led to more grade 3 or worse skin reactions of any type (15% vs. 1%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs. 2%), and hyperglycemia (4% vs. 0%). However, the majority of all treatment-related adverse events of special interest were mild to moderate in severity and consistent with those previously reported.

“There is a skill associated with the management of toxicity, and there is going to be a learning curve for people who haven’t used the drug before,” Dr. Powles acknowledged. “But my experience is, it’s a manageable drug, and delays and dose interruptions actually make it a relatively straightforward drug to give in the context of the profile that we’ve seen today.”
 

Level 1 evidence

“We now know that enfortumab vedotin is here to stay in the armamentarium for the treatment of urothelial cancer, adding its name to the ranks of others which have shown level 1 evidence, proof of a survival benefit in metastatic urothelial carcinoma,” commented invited discussant Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, a professor in the department of genitourinary medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“I’ve been impressed not only by the activity of enfortumab vedotin in visceral and liver metastases, but also by the impact in patients with bone metastases as this appears very helpful in controlling bone pain in many patients,” she noted.

Preventing and managing toxicity requires appropriate patient selection, careful monitoring, and dose modifications, with knowledge of the agent’s adverse event profile and of factors conferring elevated risk for events, Dr. Siefker-Radtke said.

“The early evidence for enfortumab vedotin in the postimmunotherapy, platinum-ineligible group suggests that this can help treat patients with an unmet need due to their inability to receive platinum-based therapy,” she concluded. “And while it’s currently approved in the third-line setting, we are all eagerly awaiting the outcomes of the frontline studies of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab, which showed such a promising objective response rate, as has been presented at earlier meetings.”

The trial was sponsored by Astellas Pharma and Seagen. Dr. Powles disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property pertaining to methods of characterizing and treating molecular subsets of muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

The antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin is superior to chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma, primary results of the EV-301 trial show.

Findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 393).

“Treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors is challenging. Overall survival is short, and therapeutic options are also limited,” noted first author Thomas Powles, MD, a professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London. “Chemotherapy is being used as the global standard of care, but randomized trials supporting these treatment choices are actually lacking. In this setting, new therapeutic agents supported by randomized trials are needed.”

Patients enrolled in EV-301 (NCT03474107), an international open-label, phase 3 trial, had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, had received platinum-based chemotherapy, and had experienced progression during or after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (anti–PD1/PD-L1 therapy).

The trial met its primary endpoint, showing that, relative to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin reduced the risk of death by 30%, giving patients nearly 4 additional months of life. The toxicity profile was similar to that seen in earlier trials and was manageable.

“Enfortumab vedotin is the first drug, beyond chemotherapy and immunotherapy, to show a significant survival advantage in previously treated urothelial cancer. This is a big step in the right direction for patients with advanced urothelial cancer, where treatment options remain quite limited,” Dr. Powles maintained.

The drug is also showing promising activity when used in the immunotherapy-treated but cisplatin-ineligible patients in the second cohort of the predecessor EV-201 trial, reported at the symposium as well (Abstract 394), he noted. “I hope that, as we move it earlier, we will show better efficacy.”

The Food and Drug Administration granted enfortumab vedotin accelerated approval as third-line therapy in 2019 on the basis of data from the EV-201 trial’s first cohort. With these new data from both trials, the manufacturers have submitted applications to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval, and to expand the current label to include cisplatin-ineligible patients.
 

Trial details

In EV-301, a total of 608 patients were randomized evenly to enfortumab vedotin (an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, a cell-adhesion molecule highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma) or the physician’s choice among three standard chemotherapy options having similar efficacy (docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine).

“None of these chemotherapy drugs have spectacular response rates, and the overall survival is best described as modest,” Dr. Powles said.

He reported results of the trial’s planned interim analysis, which became the primary analysis because the primary endpoint was positive. Specifically, median overall survival was 12.9 months with enfortumab vedotin and 9.0 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .00142). Benefit was similar across most patient subgroups.

The enfortumab vedotin group also had a better median progression-free survival (5.6 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.62; P < .00001) and investigator-assessed overall response rate (40.6% vs. 17.9%; P < .001).

The rate of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 51% with enfortumab vedotin and 50% with chemotherapy. The former was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse maculopapular rash (7% vs. 0%), whereas the latter was associated with higher rates of grade 3 or worse decreased neutrophil count (13% vs. 6%), decreased white blood cell count (7% vs. 1%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs. 1%).

Regarding events of special interest, enfortumab vedotin led to more grade 3 or worse skin reactions of any type (15% vs. 1%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs. 2%), and hyperglycemia (4% vs. 0%). However, the majority of all treatment-related adverse events of special interest were mild to moderate in severity and consistent with those previously reported.

“There is a skill associated with the management of toxicity, and there is going to be a learning curve for people who haven’t used the drug before,” Dr. Powles acknowledged. “But my experience is, it’s a manageable drug, and delays and dose interruptions actually make it a relatively straightforward drug to give in the context of the profile that we’ve seen today.”
 

Level 1 evidence

“We now know that enfortumab vedotin is here to stay in the armamentarium for the treatment of urothelial cancer, adding its name to the ranks of others which have shown level 1 evidence, proof of a survival benefit in metastatic urothelial carcinoma,” commented invited discussant Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, a professor in the department of genitourinary medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“I’ve been impressed not only by the activity of enfortumab vedotin in visceral and liver metastases, but also by the impact in patients with bone metastases as this appears very helpful in controlling bone pain in many patients,” she noted.

Preventing and managing toxicity requires appropriate patient selection, careful monitoring, and dose modifications, with knowledge of the agent’s adverse event profile and of factors conferring elevated risk for events, Dr. Siefker-Radtke said.

“The early evidence for enfortumab vedotin in the postimmunotherapy, platinum-ineligible group suggests that this can help treat patients with an unmet need due to their inability to receive platinum-based therapy,” she concluded. “And while it’s currently approved in the third-line setting, we are all eagerly awaiting the outcomes of the frontline studies of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab, which showed such a promising objective response rate, as has been presented at earlier meetings.”

The trial was sponsored by Astellas Pharma and Seagen. Dr. Powles disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property pertaining to methods of characterizing and treating molecular subsets of muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

The antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin is superior to chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma, primary results of the EV-301 trial show.

Findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 393).

“Treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors is challenging. Overall survival is short, and therapeutic options are also limited,” noted first author Thomas Powles, MD, a professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London. “Chemotherapy is being used as the global standard of care, but randomized trials supporting these treatment choices are actually lacking. In this setting, new therapeutic agents supported by randomized trials are needed.”

Patients enrolled in EV-301 (NCT03474107), an international open-label, phase 3 trial, had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, had received platinum-based chemotherapy, and had experienced progression during or after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (anti–PD1/PD-L1 therapy).

The trial met its primary endpoint, showing that, relative to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin reduced the risk of death by 30%, giving patients nearly 4 additional months of life. The toxicity profile was similar to that seen in earlier trials and was manageable.

“Enfortumab vedotin is the first drug, beyond chemotherapy and immunotherapy, to show a significant survival advantage in previously treated urothelial cancer. This is a big step in the right direction for patients with advanced urothelial cancer, where treatment options remain quite limited,” Dr. Powles maintained.

The drug is also showing promising activity when used in the immunotherapy-treated but cisplatin-ineligible patients in the second cohort of the predecessor EV-201 trial, reported at the symposium as well (Abstract 394), he noted. “I hope that, as we move it earlier, we will show better efficacy.”

The Food and Drug Administration granted enfortumab vedotin accelerated approval as third-line therapy in 2019 on the basis of data from the EV-201 trial’s first cohort. With these new data from both trials, the manufacturers have submitted applications to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval, and to expand the current label to include cisplatin-ineligible patients.
 

Trial details

In EV-301, a total of 608 patients were randomized evenly to enfortumab vedotin (an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, a cell-adhesion molecule highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma) or the physician’s choice among three standard chemotherapy options having similar efficacy (docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine).

“None of these chemotherapy drugs have spectacular response rates, and the overall survival is best described as modest,” Dr. Powles said.

He reported results of the trial’s planned interim analysis, which became the primary analysis because the primary endpoint was positive. Specifically, median overall survival was 12.9 months with enfortumab vedotin and 9.0 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .00142). Benefit was similar across most patient subgroups.

The enfortumab vedotin group also had a better median progression-free survival (5.6 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.62; P < .00001) and investigator-assessed overall response rate (40.6% vs. 17.9%; P < .001).

The rate of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 51% with enfortumab vedotin and 50% with chemotherapy. The former was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse maculopapular rash (7% vs. 0%), whereas the latter was associated with higher rates of grade 3 or worse decreased neutrophil count (13% vs. 6%), decreased white blood cell count (7% vs. 1%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs. 1%).

Regarding events of special interest, enfortumab vedotin led to more grade 3 or worse skin reactions of any type (15% vs. 1%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs. 2%), and hyperglycemia (4% vs. 0%). However, the majority of all treatment-related adverse events of special interest were mild to moderate in severity and consistent with those previously reported.

“There is a skill associated with the management of toxicity, and there is going to be a learning curve for people who haven’t used the drug before,” Dr. Powles acknowledged. “But my experience is, it’s a manageable drug, and delays and dose interruptions actually make it a relatively straightforward drug to give in the context of the profile that we’ve seen today.”
 

Level 1 evidence

“We now know that enfortumab vedotin is here to stay in the armamentarium for the treatment of urothelial cancer, adding its name to the ranks of others which have shown level 1 evidence, proof of a survival benefit in metastatic urothelial carcinoma,” commented invited discussant Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, a professor in the department of genitourinary medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“I’ve been impressed not only by the activity of enfortumab vedotin in visceral and liver metastases, but also by the impact in patients with bone metastases as this appears very helpful in controlling bone pain in many patients,” she noted.

Preventing and managing toxicity requires appropriate patient selection, careful monitoring, and dose modifications, with knowledge of the agent’s adverse event profile and of factors conferring elevated risk for events, Dr. Siefker-Radtke said.

“The early evidence for enfortumab vedotin in the postimmunotherapy, platinum-ineligible group suggests that this can help treat patients with an unmet need due to their inability to receive platinum-based therapy,” she concluded. “And while it’s currently approved in the third-line setting, we are all eagerly awaiting the outcomes of the frontline studies of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab, which showed such a promising objective response rate, as has been presented at earlier meetings.”

The trial was sponsored by Astellas Pharma and Seagen. Dr. Powles disclosed relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property pertaining to methods of characterizing and treating molecular subsets of muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Approximately half of all patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) are ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. They face poor outlooks and extremely limited treatment options.

A new study indicates that enfortumab vedotin (EV) can cause major, prolonged responses in most patients in that unfortunate setting.
 

EV is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against nectin-4, an immunoglobulin-like cell adhesion molecule that is highly expressed in UC, obviating the need for testing prior to treatment. It is internalized in malignant cells, with release of the active moiety (monomethyl auristatin E; MMAE). MMAE causes microtubule disruption, with resultant cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis.

EV received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019 after publication of the results from cohort 1 of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 EV-201 study.

Arjun V. Balar, MD, of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health, presented results from cohort 2 of EV-201 – the cisplatin-ineligible cohort – at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 394).
 

EV in patients ineligible for platinum-based therapy

Patients in cohort 2 of EV-201 had received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for la/mUC. They received EV in the FDA-approved dose for cohort 1: 1.25 mg/kg EV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle.

Patients experienced disease progression during or following their most recent treatment. Patients with more than two neuropathies, active central nervous system metastases, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus were excluded.

“Platinum ineligible” was defined as a creatinine clearance between 30-59 cm³/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2, or hearing loss of grade 2 or greater.

The primary endpoint for cohort 2 was confirmed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

There were 91 patients enrolled. Two patients never received EV treatment because of deterioration after registration. The median treatment duration among the remaining 89 patients was 6.0 months (range, 0.3-24.6).

Impressive results in poor-risk patients

The patients in EV-201 cohort 2 were elderly (median age, 75 years; range, 49-90) with comorbidities. The primary reasons for platinum-ineligibility were creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min (66%), grade 2 or greater hearing loss (15%), and ECOG PS 2 (7%); 12% of patients met more than one criterion for platinum ineligibility.

The primary tumor site was in the upper urinary tract in 43% of patients, and 79% had visceral metastases, including 24% with liver involvement.

The confirmed ORR was 52% (95% confidence interval, 40.8-62.4), with 20% complete responses. There were responses in all subgroups, including patients with primary tumor sites in the upper tract (ORR, 61%), those with liver metastasis (ORR, 48%), and patients who had not responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ORR, 48%).

A total of 88% of patients had some decrease in measurable tumor diameters, generally within a few weeks of treatment initiation (median time to response, 1.8 months). The rapid response to treatment was especially important to patients having cancer-associated pain.

The median progression-free and overall survival durations were 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.3) and 14.7 months (95% CI, 10.5-18.2), respectively. The median response duration was 10.9 months (95% CI, 5.78-NR). More than 25% of responses extended beyond 12 months.

About 82% of patients in cohort 2 discontinued treatment, most commonly because of disease progression (51%). The second most common reason was the development of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE; 24%).
 

Drilling down on treatment-related adverse events

As might be expected for cisplatin-ineligible patients, adverse events were higher for patients in cohort 2 than for cohort 1 and led to treatment discontinuation in 16% of patients overall.

TRAEs over grade 3 occurred in 55% of patients. TRAEs of special interest included rash (61% overall; 17% ≥ grade 3), peripheral neuropathy (54% overall; 8% ≥ grade 3), and hyperglycemia (10% overall; 6% ≥ grade 3). Dose reductions, interruptions, and physical therapy were helpful.

Twenty percent of patients with TRAE hyperglycemia had hyperglycemia at baseline, and 30% of TRAEs were in patients with high body mass index (BMI).

There were four treatment-related deaths, all in patients 75 years or older with multiple comorbidities. Three of the four deaths occurred within 30 days of first EV dose in patients with BMI of 30 or greater (acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome). The remaining death occurred more than 30 days after the last dose (pneumonitis).
 

Context and caution

The authors concluded that EV produced durable responses in platinum-ineligible patients with la/mUC, including 20% complete responses. Safety was felt to be as expected, given the known toxicities of the agent and the compromised medical condition of the patients studied.

The study discussant, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that EV fills an unmet need, showing impressive responses in patients with visceral, liver, and bone metastases. She agreed that EV should be investigated across the spectrum of urothelial cancer.

Dr. Siefker-Radtke reminded attendees that the FDA package insert for EV described a 48% increase in the area under the concentration-time curve concentration of the MMAE active moiety in patients with mild hepatic impairment and that EV use should be avoided entirely in patients with moderate to severe liver disease.

She speculated whether augmented toxicity in patients with a high BMI could be attributable to clinically occult impaired hepatic function from fatty liver infiltration.

She indicated that clinicians should monitor closely patients with higher BMI and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or elevated hemoglobin A1c levels and advised holding EV in patients who develop:

• Glucose levels above 250 mg/dL
• Peeling skin or bullous skin lesions. These lesions can be heralded by a diffuse erythematous or papillary rash in the preceding weeks.
• Grade 3 diarrhea or mucosal membrane toxicity of other types.

Notwithstanding concerns about toxicity and the need for monitoring, EV merits continued study in combination with other agents and in additional settings in the clinical spectrum of urothelial cancer. It is an important new option for oncologists caring for patients with urothelial cancer.

The EV-201 study was funded by Seagen. Dr. Balar and Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with Seagen and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Approximately half of all patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) are ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. They face poor outlooks and extremely limited treatment options.

A new study indicates that enfortumab vedotin (EV) can cause major, prolonged responses in most patients in that unfortunate setting.
 

EV is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against nectin-4, an immunoglobulin-like cell adhesion molecule that is highly expressed in UC, obviating the need for testing prior to treatment. It is internalized in malignant cells, with release of the active moiety (monomethyl auristatin E; MMAE). MMAE causes microtubule disruption, with resultant cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis.

EV received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019 after publication of the results from cohort 1 of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 EV-201 study.

Arjun V. Balar, MD, of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health, presented results from cohort 2 of EV-201 – the cisplatin-ineligible cohort – at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 394).
 

EV in patients ineligible for platinum-based therapy

Patients in cohort 2 of EV-201 had received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for la/mUC. They received EV in the FDA-approved dose for cohort 1: 1.25 mg/kg EV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle.

Patients experienced disease progression during or following their most recent treatment. Patients with more than two neuropathies, active central nervous system metastases, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus were excluded.

“Platinum ineligible” was defined as a creatinine clearance between 30-59 cm³/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2, or hearing loss of grade 2 or greater.

The primary endpoint for cohort 2 was confirmed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

There were 91 patients enrolled. Two patients never received EV treatment because of deterioration after registration. The median treatment duration among the remaining 89 patients was 6.0 months (range, 0.3-24.6).

Impressive results in poor-risk patients

The patients in EV-201 cohort 2 were elderly (median age, 75 years; range, 49-90) with comorbidities. The primary reasons for platinum-ineligibility were creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min (66%), grade 2 or greater hearing loss (15%), and ECOG PS 2 (7%); 12% of patients met more than one criterion for platinum ineligibility.

The primary tumor site was in the upper urinary tract in 43% of patients, and 79% had visceral metastases, including 24% with liver involvement.

The confirmed ORR was 52% (95% confidence interval, 40.8-62.4), with 20% complete responses. There were responses in all subgroups, including patients with primary tumor sites in the upper tract (ORR, 61%), those with liver metastasis (ORR, 48%), and patients who had not responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ORR, 48%).

A total of 88% of patients had some decrease in measurable tumor diameters, generally within a few weeks of treatment initiation (median time to response, 1.8 months). The rapid response to treatment was especially important to patients having cancer-associated pain.

The median progression-free and overall survival durations were 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.3) and 14.7 months (95% CI, 10.5-18.2), respectively. The median response duration was 10.9 months (95% CI, 5.78-NR). More than 25% of responses extended beyond 12 months.

About 82% of patients in cohort 2 discontinued treatment, most commonly because of disease progression (51%). The second most common reason was the development of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE; 24%).
 

Drilling down on treatment-related adverse events

As might be expected for cisplatin-ineligible patients, adverse events were higher for patients in cohort 2 than for cohort 1 and led to treatment discontinuation in 16% of patients overall.

TRAEs over grade 3 occurred in 55% of patients. TRAEs of special interest included rash (61% overall; 17% ≥ grade 3), peripheral neuropathy (54% overall; 8% ≥ grade 3), and hyperglycemia (10% overall; 6% ≥ grade 3). Dose reductions, interruptions, and physical therapy were helpful.

Twenty percent of patients with TRAE hyperglycemia had hyperglycemia at baseline, and 30% of TRAEs were in patients with high body mass index (BMI).

There were four treatment-related deaths, all in patients 75 years or older with multiple comorbidities. Three of the four deaths occurred within 30 days of first EV dose in patients with BMI of 30 or greater (acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome). The remaining death occurred more than 30 days after the last dose (pneumonitis).
 

Context and caution

The authors concluded that EV produced durable responses in platinum-ineligible patients with la/mUC, including 20% complete responses. Safety was felt to be as expected, given the known toxicities of the agent and the compromised medical condition of the patients studied.

The study discussant, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that EV fills an unmet need, showing impressive responses in patients with visceral, liver, and bone metastases. She agreed that EV should be investigated across the spectrum of urothelial cancer.

Dr. Siefker-Radtke reminded attendees that the FDA package insert for EV described a 48% increase in the area under the concentration-time curve concentration of the MMAE active moiety in patients with mild hepatic impairment and that EV use should be avoided entirely in patients with moderate to severe liver disease.

She speculated whether augmented toxicity in patients with a high BMI could be attributable to clinically occult impaired hepatic function from fatty liver infiltration.

She indicated that clinicians should monitor closely patients with higher BMI and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or elevated hemoglobin A1c levels and advised holding EV in patients who develop:

• Glucose levels above 250 mg/dL
• Peeling skin or bullous skin lesions. These lesions can be heralded by a diffuse erythematous or papillary rash in the preceding weeks.
• Grade 3 diarrhea or mucosal membrane toxicity of other types.

Notwithstanding concerns about toxicity and the need for monitoring, EV merits continued study in combination with other agents and in additional settings in the clinical spectrum of urothelial cancer. It is an important new option for oncologists caring for patients with urothelial cancer.

The EV-201 study was funded by Seagen. Dr. Balar and Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with Seagen and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Approximately half of all patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) are ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. They face poor outlooks and extremely limited treatment options.

A new study indicates that enfortumab vedotin (EV) can cause major, prolonged responses in most patients in that unfortunate setting.
 

EV is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against nectin-4, an immunoglobulin-like cell adhesion molecule that is highly expressed in UC, obviating the need for testing prior to treatment. It is internalized in malignant cells, with release of the active moiety (monomethyl auristatin E; MMAE). MMAE causes microtubule disruption, with resultant cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis.

EV received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019 after publication of the results from cohort 1 of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 EV-201 study.

Arjun V. Balar, MD, of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health, presented results from cohort 2 of EV-201 – the cisplatin-ineligible cohort – at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 394).
 

EV in patients ineligible for platinum-based therapy

Patients in cohort 2 of EV-201 had received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for la/mUC. They received EV in the FDA-approved dose for cohort 1: 1.25 mg/kg EV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle.

Patients experienced disease progression during or following their most recent treatment. Patients with more than two neuropathies, active central nervous system metastases, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus were excluded.

“Platinum ineligible” was defined as a creatinine clearance between 30-59 cm³/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2, or hearing loss of grade 2 or greater.

The primary endpoint for cohort 2 was confirmed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

There were 91 patients enrolled. Two patients never received EV treatment because of deterioration after registration. The median treatment duration among the remaining 89 patients was 6.0 months (range, 0.3-24.6).

Impressive results in poor-risk patients

The patients in EV-201 cohort 2 were elderly (median age, 75 years; range, 49-90) with comorbidities. The primary reasons for platinum-ineligibility were creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min (66%), grade 2 or greater hearing loss (15%), and ECOG PS 2 (7%); 12% of patients met more than one criterion for platinum ineligibility.

The primary tumor site was in the upper urinary tract in 43% of patients, and 79% had visceral metastases, including 24% with liver involvement.

The confirmed ORR was 52% (95% confidence interval, 40.8-62.4), with 20% complete responses. There were responses in all subgroups, including patients with primary tumor sites in the upper tract (ORR, 61%), those with liver metastasis (ORR, 48%), and patients who had not responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ORR, 48%).

A total of 88% of patients had some decrease in measurable tumor diameters, generally within a few weeks of treatment initiation (median time to response, 1.8 months). The rapid response to treatment was especially important to patients having cancer-associated pain.

The median progression-free and overall survival durations were 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.3) and 14.7 months (95% CI, 10.5-18.2), respectively. The median response duration was 10.9 months (95% CI, 5.78-NR). More than 25% of responses extended beyond 12 months.

About 82% of patients in cohort 2 discontinued treatment, most commonly because of disease progression (51%). The second most common reason was the development of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE; 24%).
 

Drilling down on treatment-related adverse events

As might be expected for cisplatin-ineligible patients, adverse events were higher for patients in cohort 2 than for cohort 1 and led to treatment discontinuation in 16% of patients overall.

TRAEs over grade 3 occurred in 55% of patients. TRAEs of special interest included rash (61% overall; 17% ≥ grade 3), peripheral neuropathy (54% overall; 8% ≥ grade 3), and hyperglycemia (10% overall; 6% ≥ grade 3). Dose reductions, interruptions, and physical therapy were helpful.

Twenty percent of patients with TRAE hyperglycemia had hyperglycemia at baseline, and 30% of TRAEs were in patients with high body mass index (BMI).

There were four treatment-related deaths, all in patients 75 years or older with multiple comorbidities. Three of the four deaths occurred within 30 days of first EV dose in patients with BMI of 30 or greater (acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome). The remaining death occurred more than 30 days after the last dose (pneumonitis).
 

Context and caution

The authors concluded that EV produced durable responses in platinum-ineligible patients with la/mUC, including 20% complete responses. Safety was felt to be as expected, given the known toxicities of the agent and the compromised medical condition of the patients studied.

The study discussant, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that EV fills an unmet need, showing impressive responses in patients with visceral, liver, and bone metastases. She agreed that EV should be investigated across the spectrum of urothelial cancer.

Dr. Siefker-Radtke reminded attendees that the FDA package insert for EV described a 48% increase in the area under the concentration-time curve concentration of the MMAE active moiety in patients with mild hepatic impairment and that EV use should be avoided entirely in patients with moderate to severe liver disease.

She speculated whether augmented toxicity in patients with a high BMI could be attributable to clinically occult impaired hepatic function from fatty liver infiltration.

She indicated that clinicians should monitor closely patients with higher BMI and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or elevated hemoglobin A1c levels and advised holding EV in patients who develop:

• Glucose levels above 250 mg/dL
• Peeling skin or bullous skin lesions. These lesions can be heralded by a diffuse erythematous or papillary rash in the preceding weeks.
• Grade 3 diarrhea or mucosal membrane toxicity of other types.

Notwithstanding concerns about toxicity and the need for monitoring, EV merits continued study in combination with other agents and in additional settings in the clinical spectrum of urothelial cancer. It is an important new option for oncologists caring for patients with urothelial cancer.

The EV-201 study was funded by Seagen. Dr. Balar and Dr. Siefker-Radtke disclosed relationships with Seagen and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

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

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

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

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

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

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

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

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

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

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

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

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

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

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

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

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

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

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

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

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

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.