Genitourinary Cancer

Men with prostate cancer may be wise to watch their waistlines, according to the findings of a large observational study in which patients with the highest waist measurements had a higher chance of dying from prostate cancer.

Researchers found that, over a 10.8-year period, men with the largest waist circumferences appeared 35% more likely to die from prostate cancer, when compared to men with the smallest waist circumferences (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.73).

Men in the highest quartile for waist-to-hip ratio measurements also had a 34% higher risk of dying from prostate cancer, when compared to men in the lowest quartile (HR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.04–1.72).

There was no association between the total body fat percentage (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.79–1.28) or body mass index (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.78–1.28) and the risk for prostate cancer death.

The findings – reported in a late-breaking poster at the European and International Conference on Obesity (ECOICO) – provide further insight into how fat and its distribution may be associated with prostate cancer death.
 

A ‘complex’ relationship

“Obesity is a known risk factor for many cancer sites, but its association with prostate cancer is less clear. It’s very complex,” said study investigator Aurora Pérez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at University of Oxford, England.

Three years ago, Dr. Pérez-Cornago and collaborators looked for risk factors for prostate cancer among men who had volunteered to participate in the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.

One of the group’s findings was that excess adiposity and body fat were not associated with an increase in the development of prostate cancer (Br J Cancer. 2017 Nov 7;117[10]:1562-71). In fact, these factors were associated with a lower risk. This inverse association likely had more to do with prostate-specific antigen screening than a true effect of body weight, as men with obesity were potentially less likely to be screened or have lower prostate-specific antigen levels, Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

For the present study, attention was turned to men with aggressive prostate tumors as “these are the kind of tumors we are more interested in because they are the ones that can kill these men,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

There was also previous evidence suggesting that adiposity may be associated with a higher risk of aggressive disease.

Data on 218,225 men with no previous cancer when they enrolled in the UK Biobank cohort study were linked to health care administrative databases that provided information on prostate cancer deaths. This showed that 571 men died from prostate cancer over a 10.8-year follow-up period.

“When we looked at the association of adiposity measurements – we looked at [body mass index] and body fat percentage as markers of total adiposity, and waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio as markers of central adiposity – we found that the association seems to be more specific for fat located around the waist,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

“Excessive fat accumulation around your belly is likely to be visceral fat, which may induce metabolic and hormonal dysfunction that, in turn, may help prostate cancer cells to develop and to progress,” she added.
 

Study strengths and next steps

As this was an observational study, the researchers could not confirm a causal association between central adiposity and prostate cancer death. That is why Dr. Perez-Cornago and collaborators plan to do further work that will include biomarker studies. The team also will look at stage and grade data when available in the UK Biobank.

“There is strong evidence that men with greater body fat are at a higher risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer. It is time to build on this,” said Barbra Dickerman, PhD, who has looked at the relationship between obesity and prostate cancer progression (Cancer. 2019 Aug 15;125[16]:2877-85).

“First, predictive analyses of directly measured body fat distribution may sharpen our view of who is at the highest risk,” observed Dr. Dickerman, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

“Second, causal analyses of precisely defined energy balance strategies may help to identify targeted prevention strategies that minimize that risk,” she added.

One of the strengths of Dr. Pérez-Cornago’s work was that it used data from a large, prospective study to examine the link between adiposity and the risk of fatal prostate cancer, observed Ying Wang, PhD, a senior principal scientist of epidemiology research at The American Cancer Society.

“In addition to the large sample size, anthropometric measurements were obtained by trained research clinic staff rather than self-reported by participants, which is a strength compared with many other studies,” Dr. Wang noted.

Furthermore, Dr. Wang said, “The study was also able to control for multiple confounders, including lifestyle factors such as smoking and physical activity. Future studies need to confirm their findings.”

The study was supported by a fellowship from Cancer Research UK. The investigators, Dr. Dickerman, and Dr. Wang had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Pérez-Cornago A et al. ECOICO 2020. LBP-075.

Men with prostate cancer may be wise to watch their waistlines, according to the findings of a large observational study in which patients with the highest waist measurements had a higher chance of dying from prostate cancer.

Researchers found that, over a 10.8-year period, men with the largest waist circumferences appeared 35% more likely to die from prostate cancer, when compared to men with the smallest waist circumferences (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.73).

Men in the highest quartile for waist-to-hip ratio measurements also had a 34% higher risk of dying from prostate cancer, when compared to men in the lowest quartile (HR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.04–1.72).

There was no association between the total body fat percentage (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.79–1.28) or body mass index (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.78–1.28) and the risk for prostate cancer death.

The findings – reported in a late-breaking poster at the European and International Conference on Obesity (ECOICO) – provide further insight into how fat and its distribution may be associated with prostate cancer death.
 

A ‘complex’ relationship

“Obesity is a known risk factor for many cancer sites, but its association with prostate cancer is less clear. It’s very complex,” said study investigator Aurora Pérez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at University of Oxford, England.

Three years ago, Dr. Pérez-Cornago and collaborators looked for risk factors for prostate cancer among men who had volunteered to participate in the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.

One of the group’s findings was that excess adiposity and body fat were not associated with an increase in the development of prostate cancer (Br J Cancer. 2017 Nov 7;117[10]:1562-71). In fact, these factors were associated with a lower risk. This inverse association likely had more to do with prostate-specific antigen screening than a true effect of body weight, as men with obesity were potentially less likely to be screened or have lower prostate-specific antigen levels, Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

For the present study, attention was turned to men with aggressive prostate tumors as “these are the kind of tumors we are more interested in because they are the ones that can kill these men,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

There was also previous evidence suggesting that adiposity may be associated with a higher risk of aggressive disease.

Data on 218,225 men with no previous cancer when they enrolled in the UK Biobank cohort study were linked to health care administrative databases that provided information on prostate cancer deaths. This showed that 571 men died from prostate cancer over a 10.8-year follow-up period.

“When we looked at the association of adiposity measurements – we looked at [body mass index] and body fat percentage as markers of total adiposity, and waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio as markers of central adiposity – we found that the association seems to be more specific for fat located around the waist,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

“Excessive fat accumulation around your belly is likely to be visceral fat, which may induce metabolic and hormonal dysfunction that, in turn, may help prostate cancer cells to develop and to progress,” she added.
 

Study strengths and next steps

As this was an observational study, the researchers could not confirm a causal association between central adiposity and prostate cancer death. That is why Dr. Perez-Cornago and collaborators plan to do further work that will include biomarker studies. The team also will look at stage and grade data when available in the UK Biobank.

“There is strong evidence that men with greater body fat are at a higher risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer. It is time to build on this,” said Barbra Dickerman, PhD, who has looked at the relationship between obesity and prostate cancer progression (Cancer. 2019 Aug 15;125[16]:2877-85).

“First, predictive analyses of directly measured body fat distribution may sharpen our view of who is at the highest risk,” observed Dr. Dickerman, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

“Second, causal analyses of precisely defined energy balance strategies may help to identify targeted prevention strategies that minimize that risk,” she added.

One of the strengths of Dr. Pérez-Cornago’s work was that it used data from a large, prospective study to examine the link between adiposity and the risk of fatal prostate cancer, observed Ying Wang, PhD, a senior principal scientist of epidemiology research at The American Cancer Society.

“In addition to the large sample size, anthropometric measurements were obtained by trained research clinic staff rather than self-reported by participants, which is a strength compared with many other studies,” Dr. Wang noted.

Furthermore, Dr. Wang said, “The study was also able to control for multiple confounders, including lifestyle factors such as smoking and physical activity. Future studies need to confirm their findings.”

The study was supported by a fellowship from Cancer Research UK. The investigators, Dr. Dickerman, and Dr. Wang had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Pérez-Cornago A et al. ECOICO 2020. LBP-075.

Men with prostate cancer may be wise to watch their waistlines, according to the findings of a large observational study in which patients with the highest waist measurements had a higher chance of dying from prostate cancer.

Researchers found that, over a 10.8-year period, men with the largest waist circumferences appeared 35% more likely to die from prostate cancer, when compared to men with the smallest waist circumferences (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.73).

Men in the highest quartile for waist-to-hip ratio measurements also had a 34% higher risk of dying from prostate cancer, when compared to men in the lowest quartile (HR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.04–1.72).

There was no association between the total body fat percentage (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.79–1.28) or body mass index (HR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.78–1.28) and the risk for prostate cancer death.

The findings – reported in a late-breaking poster at the European and International Conference on Obesity (ECOICO) – provide further insight into how fat and its distribution may be associated with prostate cancer death.
 

A ‘complex’ relationship

“Obesity is a known risk factor for many cancer sites, but its association with prostate cancer is less clear. It’s very complex,” said study investigator Aurora Pérez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at University of Oxford, England.

Three years ago, Dr. Pérez-Cornago and collaborators looked for risk factors for prostate cancer among men who had volunteered to participate in the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.

One of the group’s findings was that excess adiposity and body fat were not associated with an increase in the development of prostate cancer (Br J Cancer. 2017 Nov 7;117[10]:1562-71). In fact, these factors were associated with a lower risk. This inverse association likely had more to do with prostate-specific antigen screening than a true effect of body weight, as men with obesity were potentially less likely to be screened or have lower prostate-specific antigen levels, Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

For the present study, attention was turned to men with aggressive prostate tumors as “these are the kind of tumors we are more interested in because they are the ones that can kill these men,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

There was also previous evidence suggesting that adiposity may be associated with a higher risk of aggressive disease.

Data on 218,225 men with no previous cancer when they enrolled in the UK Biobank cohort study were linked to health care administrative databases that provided information on prostate cancer deaths. This showed that 571 men died from prostate cancer over a 10.8-year follow-up period.

“When we looked at the association of adiposity measurements – we looked at [body mass index] and body fat percentage as markers of total adiposity, and waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio as markers of central adiposity – we found that the association seems to be more specific for fat located around the waist,” Dr. Pérez-Cornago said.

“Excessive fat accumulation around your belly is likely to be visceral fat, which may induce metabolic and hormonal dysfunction that, in turn, may help prostate cancer cells to develop and to progress,” she added.
 

Study strengths and next steps

As this was an observational study, the researchers could not confirm a causal association between central adiposity and prostate cancer death. That is why Dr. Perez-Cornago and collaborators plan to do further work that will include biomarker studies. The team also will look at stage and grade data when available in the UK Biobank.

“There is strong evidence that men with greater body fat are at a higher risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer. It is time to build on this,” said Barbra Dickerman, PhD, who has looked at the relationship between obesity and prostate cancer progression (Cancer. 2019 Aug 15;125[16]:2877-85).

“First, predictive analyses of directly measured body fat distribution may sharpen our view of who is at the highest risk,” observed Dr. Dickerman, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

“Second, causal analyses of precisely defined energy balance strategies may help to identify targeted prevention strategies that minimize that risk,” she added.

One of the strengths of Dr. Pérez-Cornago’s work was that it used data from a large, prospective study to examine the link between adiposity and the risk of fatal prostate cancer, observed Ying Wang, PhD, a senior principal scientist of epidemiology research at The American Cancer Society.

“In addition to the large sample size, anthropometric measurements were obtained by trained research clinic staff rather than self-reported by participants, which is a strength compared with many other studies,” Dr. Wang noted.

Furthermore, Dr. Wang said, “The study was also able to control for multiple confounders, including lifestyle factors such as smoking and physical activity. Future studies need to confirm their findings.”

The study was supported by a fellowship from Cancer Research UK. The investigators, Dr. Dickerman, and Dr. Wang had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Pérez-Cornago A et al. ECOICO 2020. LBP-075.

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.

The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.

The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.

The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.

Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.

A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.

“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.

A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.

“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.

However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”

But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”

Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.

That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
 

With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?

The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.

Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.

Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.

However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).

“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
 

Study details

The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.

Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).

As noted above, there were some exceptions.

Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.

Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).

In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).

In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”

She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).

Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.

They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A study of more than 60,000 prostate cancer patients suggests it is safe to delay radiation therapy (RT) for at least 6 months for localized higher-risk disease being treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

These findings are relevant to oncology care in the COVID-19 era, as the pandemic has complicated delivery of radiation therapy (RT) in several ways, the study authors wrote in JAMA Oncology.

“Daily hospital trips for RT create many possible points of COVID-19 transmission, and patients with cancer are at high risk of COVID-19 mortality,” Edward Christopher Dee, a research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

To assess the safety of delaying RT, the investigators analyzed National Cancer Database data for 63,858 men with localized but unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, or very-high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2004-2014 and managed with external beam RT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Only 5.6% of patients (n = 3,572) initiated their RT 0-60 days before starting ADT. Another 36.3% (n = 23,207) initiated RT 1-60 days after starting ADT, 47.4% (n = 30,285) initiated RT 61-120 days after starting ADT, and 10.6% (n = 6,794) initiated RT 121-180 days after starting ADT.

The investigators found that 10-year overall survival rates were similar regardless of when patients started RT.

Multivariate analysis in the unfavorable intermediate-risk group showed that, relative to peers who started RT before ADT, men initiating RT later did not have significantly poorer overall survival, regardless of whether RT was initiated 1-60 days after starting ADT (hazard ratio for death, 1.03; P = .64), 61-120 days after (HR, 0.95; P = .42), or 121-180 days after (HR, 0.99; P = .90).

Findings were similar in the combined high-risk and very-high-risk group, with no significant elevation of mortality risk for patients initiating RT 1-60 days after starting ADT (HR, 1.07; P = .12), 61-120 days after (HR, 1.04; P = .36), or 121-180 days after (HR, 1.07; P = .17).

“These results validate the findings of two prior randomized trials and possibly justify the delay of prostate RT for patients currently receiving ADT until COVID-19 infection rates in the community and hospitals are lower,” the authors wrote.

Despite the fairly short follow-up period and other study limitations, “if COVID-19 outbreaks continue to occur sporadically during the coming months to years, these data could allow future flexibility about the timing of RT initiation,” the authors concluded.
 

Experts weigh in

“Overall, this study is asking a good question given the COVID situation and the fact that many providers are delaying RT due to COVID concerns of patients and providers,” Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, commented in an interview.

At the same time, Dr. Lawton cautioned about oversimplifying the issue, noting that results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9413 trial suggest important interactions between the anatomic extent of RT and the timing of ADT on outcomes (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 1;69[3]:646-55).

“I have certainly delayed some of my own patients with ADT during the COVID pandemic,” she reported. “No one knows what the maximum acceptable delay should be. A few months is likely not a problem, and a year is probably too much, but scientifically, we just don’t know.”

The interplay of volume irradiated and ADT timing is relevant here, agreed Mack Roach III, MD, of University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, the study did not address why ADT was given when it was, the duration of this therapy, and endpoints other than overall survival (such as prostate-specific antigen failure rate) that may better reflect the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

“Yes, delays are safe for patients on ADT, but not for the reasons stated. A more appropriate source of data is RTOG 9910, which compared 28 versus 8 weeks of ADT prior to RT for mostly intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with comparable results,” Dr. Roach noted (J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33[4]:332-9).

“Delay duration should be based on the risk of disease, but 6 months is probably safe, especially if on ADT,” he said.

Michael J. Zelefsky, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said he agreed with the investigators’ main conclusions. “Once ADT suppression is achieved, maintaining patients on this regimen for 6 months would not likely lead to the development of a castrate-resistant state where radiotherapy would be less effective,” he elaborated.

However, limitations of the database used preclude conclusions about the safety of longer delays or the impact on other outcomes, he cautioned.

“This study provides further support to the accepted notion that delays of up to 6 months prior to initiation of planned prostate radiation would be safe and appropriate, especially where concerns of COVID outbreaks may present significant logistic challenges and concerns for the patient, who needs to commit to a course of daily radiation treatments, which could span for 5-8 weeks,” Dr. Zelefsky said.

“We have, in fact, adopted this approach in our clinics during the COVID outbreaks in New York,” he reported. “Most of our patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk disease were initiated on ADT planned for at least 4-6 months before the radiotherapy was initiated. In addition, for these reasons, our preference has been to also offer such patients, if feasible, an ultrahypofractionated treatment course where the radiotherapy course is completed in five fractions over 1-2 weeks.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed various grants and personal fees outside the submitted work. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor on RTOG 9413. Dr. Roach and Dr. Zelefsky disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dee EC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3545.

A study of more than 60,000 prostate cancer patients suggests it is safe to delay radiation therapy (RT) for at least 6 months for localized higher-risk disease being treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

These findings are relevant to oncology care in the COVID-19 era, as the pandemic has complicated delivery of radiation therapy (RT) in several ways, the study authors wrote in JAMA Oncology.

“Daily hospital trips for RT create many possible points of COVID-19 transmission, and patients with cancer are at high risk of COVID-19 mortality,” Edward Christopher Dee, a research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

To assess the safety of delaying RT, the investigators analyzed National Cancer Database data for 63,858 men with localized but unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, or very-high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2004-2014 and managed with external beam RT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Only 5.6% of patients (n = 3,572) initiated their RT 0-60 days before starting ADT. Another 36.3% (n = 23,207) initiated RT 1-60 days after starting ADT, 47.4% (n = 30,285) initiated RT 61-120 days after starting ADT, and 10.6% (n = 6,794) initiated RT 121-180 days after starting ADT.

The investigators found that 10-year overall survival rates were similar regardless of when patients started RT.

Multivariate analysis in the unfavorable intermediate-risk group showed that, relative to peers who started RT before ADT, men initiating RT later did not have significantly poorer overall survival, regardless of whether RT was initiated 1-60 days after starting ADT (hazard ratio for death, 1.03; P = .64), 61-120 days after (HR, 0.95; P = .42), or 121-180 days after (HR, 0.99; P = .90).

Findings were similar in the combined high-risk and very-high-risk group, with no significant elevation of mortality risk for patients initiating RT 1-60 days after starting ADT (HR, 1.07; P = .12), 61-120 days after (HR, 1.04; P = .36), or 121-180 days after (HR, 1.07; P = .17).

“These results validate the findings of two prior randomized trials and possibly justify the delay of prostate RT for patients currently receiving ADT until COVID-19 infection rates in the community and hospitals are lower,” the authors wrote.

Despite the fairly short follow-up period and other study limitations, “if COVID-19 outbreaks continue to occur sporadically during the coming months to years, these data could allow future flexibility about the timing of RT initiation,” the authors concluded.
 

Experts weigh in

“Overall, this study is asking a good question given the COVID situation and the fact that many providers are delaying RT due to COVID concerns of patients and providers,” Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, commented in an interview.

At the same time, Dr. Lawton cautioned about oversimplifying the issue, noting that results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9413 trial suggest important interactions between the anatomic extent of RT and the timing of ADT on outcomes (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 1;69[3]:646-55).

“I have certainly delayed some of my own patients with ADT during the COVID pandemic,” she reported. “No one knows what the maximum acceptable delay should be. A few months is likely not a problem, and a year is probably too much, but scientifically, we just don’t know.”

The interplay of volume irradiated and ADT timing is relevant here, agreed Mack Roach III, MD, of University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, the study did not address why ADT was given when it was, the duration of this therapy, and endpoints other than overall survival (such as prostate-specific antigen failure rate) that may better reflect the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

“Yes, delays are safe for patients on ADT, but not for the reasons stated. A more appropriate source of data is RTOG 9910, which compared 28 versus 8 weeks of ADT prior to RT for mostly intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with comparable results,” Dr. Roach noted (J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33[4]:332-9).

“Delay duration should be based on the risk of disease, but 6 months is probably safe, especially if on ADT,” he said.

Michael J. Zelefsky, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said he agreed with the investigators’ main conclusions. “Once ADT suppression is achieved, maintaining patients on this regimen for 6 months would not likely lead to the development of a castrate-resistant state where radiotherapy would be less effective,” he elaborated.

However, limitations of the database used preclude conclusions about the safety of longer delays or the impact on other outcomes, he cautioned.

“This study provides further support to the accepted notion that delays of up to 6 months prior to initiation of planned prostate radiation would be safe and appropriate, especially where concerns of COVID outbreaks may present significant logistic challenges and concerns for the patient, who needs to commit to a course of daily radiation treatments, which could span for 5-8 weeks,” Dr. Zelefsky said.

“We have, in fact, adopted this approach in our clinics during the COVID outbreaks in New York,” he reported. “Most of our patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk disease were initiated on ADT planned for at least 4-6 months before the radiotherapy was initiated. In addition, for these reasons, our preference has been to also offer such patients, if feasible, an ultrahypofractionated treatment course where the radiotherapy course is completed in five fractions over 1-2 weeks.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed various grants and personal fees outside the submitted work. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor on RTOG 9413. Dr. Roach and Dr. Zelefsky disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dee EC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3545.

A study of more than 60,000 prostate cancer patients suggests it is safe to delay radiation therapy (RT) for at least 6 months for localized higher-risk disease being treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

These findings are relevant to oncology care in the COVID-19 era, as the pandemic has complicated delivery of radiation therapy (RT) in several ways, the study authors wrote in JAMA Oncology.

“Daily hospital trips for RT create many possible points of COVID-19 transmission, and patients with cancer are at high risk of COVID-19 mortality,” Edward Christopher Dee, a research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

To assess the safety of delaying RT, the investigators analyzed National Cancer Database data for 63,858 men with localized but unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, or very-high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2004-2014 and managed with external beam RT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Only 5.6% of patients (n = 3,572) initiated their RT 0-60 days before starting ADT. Another 36.3% (n = 23,207) initiated RT 1-60 days after starting ADT, 47.4% (n = 30,285) initiated RT 61-120 days after starting ADT, and 10.6% (n = 6,794) initiated RT 121-180 days after starting ADT.

The investigators found that 10-year overall survival rates were similar regardless of when patients started RT.

Multivariate analysis in the unfavorable intermediate-risk group showed that, relative to peers who started RT before ADT, men initiating RT later did not have significantly poorer overall survival, regardless of whether RT was initiated 1-60 days after starting ADT (hazard ratio for death, 1.03; P = .64), 61-120 days after (HR, 0.95; P = .42), or 121-180 days after (HR, 0.99; P = .90).

Findings were similar in the combined high-risk and very-high-risk group, with no significant elevation of mortality risk for patients initiating RT 1-60 days after starting ADT (HR, 1.07; P = .12), 61-120 days after (HR, 1.04; P = .36), or 121-180 days after (HR, 1.07; P = .17).

“These results validate the findings of two prior randomized trials and possibly justify the delay of prostate RT for patients currently receiving ADT until COVID-19 infection rates in the community and hospitals are lower,” the authors wrote.

Despite the fairly short follow-up period and other study limitations, “if COVID-19 outbreaks continue to occur sporadically during the coming months to years, these data could allow future flexibility about the timing of RT initiation,” the authors concluded.
 

Experts weigh in

“Overall, this study is asking a good question given the COVID situation and the fact that many providers are delaying RT due to COVID concerns of patients and providers,” Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, commented in an interview.

At the same time, Dr. Lawton cautioned about oversimplifying the issue, noting that results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9413 trial suggest important interactions between the anatomic extent of RT and the timing of ADT on outcomes (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 1;69[3]:646-55).

“I have certainly delayed some of my own patients with ADT during the COVID pandemic,” she reported. “No one knows what the maximum acceptable delay should be. A few months is likely not a problem, and a year is probably too much, but scientifically, we just don’t know.”

The interplay of volume irradiated and ADT timing is relevant here, agreed Mack Roach III, MD, of University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, the study did not address why ADT was given when it was, the duration of this therapy, and endpoints other than overall survival (such as prostate-specific antigen failure rate) that may better reflect the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

“Yes, delays are safe for patients on ADT, but not for the reasons stated. A more appropriate source of data is RTOG 9910, which compared 28 versus 8 weeks of ADT prior to RT for mostly intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with comparable results,” Dr. Roach noted (J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33[4]:332-9).

“Delay duration should be based on the risk of disease, but 6 months is probably safe, especially if on ADT,” he said.

Michael J. Zelefsky, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said he agreed with the investigators’ main conclusions. “Once ADT suppression is achieved, maintaining patients on this regimen for 6 months would not likely lead to the development of a castrate-resistant state where radiotherapy would be less effective,” he elaborated.

However, limitations of the database used preclude conclusions about the safety of longer delays or the impact on other outcomes, he cautioned.

“This study provides further support to the accepted notion that delays of up to 6 months prior to initiation of planned prostate radiation would be safe and appropriate, especially where concerns of COVID outbreaks may present significant logistic challenges and concerns for the patient, who needs to commit to a course of daily radiation treatments, which could span for 5-8 weeks,” Dr. Zelefsky said.

“We have, in fact, adopted this approach in our clinics during the COVID outbreaks in New York,” he reported. “Most of our patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk disease were initiated on ADT planned for at least 4-6 months before the radiotherapy was initiated. In addition, for these reasons, our preference has been to also offer such patients, if feasible, an ultrahypofractionated treatment course where the radiotherapy course is completed in five fractions over 1-2 weeks.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed various grants and personal fees outside the submitted work. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor on RTOG 9413. Dr. Roach and Dr. Zelefsky disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dee EC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3545.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research, published in European Urology, has revealed an association between gut microbial diversity and treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The findings suggest that metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with a greater abundance of certain bacterial species derive clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) treatment.

“We conducted a prospective observational study to determine the association between baseline gut microbial diversity and clinical benefit in patients with mRCC receiving CPIs,” study author Nicholas J. Salgia, an MD/PhD student at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers collected stool samples from 31 mRCC patients within 7 days of them starting nivolumab monotherapy (77%) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (23%). The microbial composition of each sample was evaluated using whole-metagenome sequencing at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment initiation.

In all, 58% of patients experienced a clinical benefit of treatment, which was defined as achieving a response or having stable disease for more than 4 months. There were 11 patients (35%) who achieved a complete or partial response and 7 (23%) who had stable disease for more than 4 months.

“Greater microbial diversity was associated with clinical benefit from CPI therapy (P = .001), and multiple species were associated with clinical benefit or lack thereof,” the researchers wrote.

In fact, there were 13 bacterial species with a linear discriminant analysis score of 3 or greater that distinguished between patients who had a clinical benefit (9 species) and those who did not (4 species).

The bacterial species with the greatest significance among patients with a clinical benefit were Bifidobacterium adolescentis (P = .002), Barnesiella intestinihominis (P = .002), Odoribacter splanchnicus (P = .006), and Bacteroides eggerthii (P = .009).

“These results suggest that certain species (e.g., [Prevotella] copri) appear to expand in relative abundance in patients deriving clinical benefit,” the researchers wrote.

The team also found that Akkermansia muciniphila increased in relative abundance in many patients experiencing clinical benefit and decreased in several patients not deriving clinical benefit.

“The patients with the highest benefit from cancer treatment were those with more microbial diversity but also those with a higher abundance of a specific bacterium known as Akkermansia muciniphila,” study author Sarah K. Highlander, PhD, of Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix, said in a statement.

“This organism has been associated with benefit in other immunotherapy studies,” she explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the method of stool collection. Given the use of a small, non–vacuum-sealed container, proliferation of aerobic bacteria could have occurred.

Based on the findings of this study, researchers are conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of gut microbial modulation in CPI response. In this phase 1 study, researchers are investigating the use of frontline nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without CBM-588, a strain of Clostridium butyricum with both anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties in the intestinal epithelium.

The current study was supported, in part, by a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several authors disclosed financial affiliations with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Salgia NJ et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.011.

New research, published in European Urology, has revealed an association between gut microbial diversity and treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The findings suggest that metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with a greater abundance of certain bacterial species derive clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) treatment.

“We conducted a prospective observational study to determine the association between baseline gut microbial diversity and clinical benefit in patients with mRCC receiving CPIs,” study author Nicholas J. Salgia, an MD/PhD student at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers collected stool samples from 31 mRCC patients within 7 days of them starting nivolumab monotherapy (77%) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (23%). The microbial composition of each sample was evaluated using whole-metagenome sequencing at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment initiation.

In all, 58% of patients experienced a clinical benefit of treatment, which was defined as achieving a response or having stable disease for more than 4 months. There were 11 patients (35%) who achieved a complete or partial response and 7 (23%) who had stable disease for more than 4 months.

“Greater microbial diversity was associated with clinical benefit from CPI therapy (P = .001), and multiple species were associated with clinical benefit or lack thereof,” the researchers wrote.

In fact, there were 13 bacterial species with a linear discriminant analysis score of 3 or greater that distinguished between patients who had a clinical benefit (9 species) and those who did not (4 species).

The bacterial species with the greatest significance among patients with a clinical benefit were Bifidobacterium adolescentis (P = .002), Barnesiella intestinihominis (P = .002), Odoribacter splanchnicus (P = .006), and Bacteroides eggerthii (P = .009).

“These results suggest that certain species (e.g., [Prevotella] copri) appear to expand in relative abundance in patients deriving clinical benefit,” the researchers wrote.

The team also found that Akkermansia muciniphila increased in relative abundance in many patients experiencing clinical benefit and decreased in several patients not deriving clinical benefit.

“The patients with the highest benefit from cancer treatment were those with more microbial diversity but also those with a higher abundance of a specific bacterium known as Akkermansia muciniphila,” study author Sarah K. Highlander, PhD, of Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix, said in a statement.

“This organism has been associated with benefit in other immunotherapy studies,” she explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the method of stool collection. Given the use of a small, non–vacuum-sealed container, proliferation of aerobic bacteria could have occurred.

Based on the findings of this study, researchers are conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of gut microbial modulation in CPI response. In this phase 1 study, researchers are investigating the use of frontline nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without CBM-588, a strain of Clostridium butyricum with both anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties in the intestinal epithelium.

The current study was supported, in part, by a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several authors disclosed financial affiliations with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Salgia NJ et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.011.

New research, published in European Urology, has revealed an association between gut microbial diversity and treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The findings suggest that metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with a greater abundance of certain bacterial species derive clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) treatment.

“We conducted a prospective observational study to determine the association between baseline gut microbial diversity and clinical benefit in patients with mRCC receiving CPIs,” study author Nicholas J. Salgia, an MD/PhD student at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers collected stool samples from 31 mRCC patients within 7 days of them starting nivolumab monotherapy (77%) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (23%). The microbial composition of each sample was evaluated using whole-metagenome sequencing at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment initiation.

In all, 58% of patients experienced a clinical benefit of treatment, which was defined as achieving a response or having stable disease for more than 4 months. There were 11 patients (35%) who achieved a complete or partial response and 7 (23%) who had stable disease for more than 4 months.

“Greater microbial diversity was associated with clinical benefit from CPI therapy (P = .001), and multiple species were associated with clinical benefit or lack thereof,” the researchers wrote.

In fact, there were 13 bacterial species with a linear discriminant analysis score of 3 or greater that distinguished between patients who had a clinical benefit (9 species) and those who did not (4 species).

The bacterial species with the greatest significance among patients with a clinical benefit were Bifidobacterium adolescentis (P = .002), Barnesiella intestinihominis (P = .002), Odoribacter splanchnicus (P = .006), and Bacteroides eggerthii (P = .009).

“These results suggest that certain species (e.g., [Prevotella] copri) appear to expand in relative abundance in patients deriving clinical benefit,” the researchers wrote.

The team also found that Akkermansia muciniphila increased in relative abundance in many patients experiencing clinical benefit and decreased in several patients not deriving clinical benefit.

“The patients with the highest benefit from cancer treatment were those with more microbial diversity but also those with a higher abundance of a specific bacterium known as Akkermansia muciniphila,” study author Sarah K. Highlander, PhD, of Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix, said in a statement.

“This organism has been associated with benefit in other immunotherapy studies,” she explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the method of stool collection. Given the use of a small, non–vacuum-sealed container, proliferation of aerobic bacteria could have occurred.

Based on the findings of this study, researchers are conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of gut microbial modulation in CPI response. In this phase 1 study, researchers are investigating the use of frontline nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without CBM-588, a strain of Clostridium butyricum with both anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties in the intestinal epithelium.

The current study was supported, in part, by a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several authors disclosed financial affiliations with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Salgia NJ et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.011.

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.