Genitourinary Cancer

Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.

Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.

“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.

Create “Incident Command Structure”

In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.

Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”

Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.

First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.

“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”

Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.

“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.

“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”

Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.

In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.

Outpatient Care

Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.

To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.

One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.

Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.

Treatment Decisions

Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.

Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.

Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.

Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”

Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.

The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.

Inpatient Care

For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.

Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.

In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.

The Future

The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”

Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”

Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.

Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.

“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.

Create “Incident Command Structure”

In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.

Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”

Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.

First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.

“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”

Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.

“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.

“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”

Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.

In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.

Outpatient Care

Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.

To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.

One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.

Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.

Treatment Decisions

Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.

Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.

Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.

Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”

Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.

The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.

Inpatient Care

For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.

Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.

In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.

The Future

The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”

Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”

Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.

Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.

“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.

Create “Incident Command Structure”

In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.

Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”

Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.

First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.

“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”

Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.

“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.

“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”

Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.

In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.

Outpatient Care

Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.

To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.

One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.

Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.

Treatment Decisions

Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.

Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.

Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.

Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”

Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.

The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.

Inpatient Care

For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.

Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.

In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.

The Future

The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”

Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”

As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
 

Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?

Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.

Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
 

Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.

Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.

Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.

Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?

David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.

Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.

Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.

Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.

Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
 

Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?

Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.

Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.

Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
 

Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?

Weber: Not yet.

Dizon: No, not at the moment.
 

Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?

Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.

Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.

Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
 

Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?

Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.

Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.

Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).

Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.

Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
 

Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?

Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.

Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
 

Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.

Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.

Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.

Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?

David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.

Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.

Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.

Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.

Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
 

Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?

Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.

Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.

Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
 

Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?

Weber: Not yet.

Dizon: No, not at the moment.
 

Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?

Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.

Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.

Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
 

Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?

Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.

Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.

Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).

Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.

Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
 

Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?

Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.

Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
 

Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.

Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.

Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.

Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?

David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.

Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.

Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.

Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.

Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
 

Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?

Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.

Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.

Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
 

Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?

Weber: Not yet.

Dizon: No, not at the moment.
 

Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?

Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.

Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.

Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
 

Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?

Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.

Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.

Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).

Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.

Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – Response to checkpoint inhibitors was associated with pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (pALC) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (pNLR) in patients with kidney or bladder cancer treated in a real-world setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In a retrospective study of 20 patients, those with lower pALCs and higher pNLRs were less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors.

Tonjeh Bah, MD, of Feist-Weiller Cancer Center at LSU Health Shreveport in Louisiana, and colleagues reported these results in a poster at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Response rates were 75% in patients with pALC greater than 1,000 and 25% in patients with pALC less than 1,000. This difference was statistically significant (P = .027), Dr. Bah noted, adding that the groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, race, and type of checkpoint inhibitors used.

Similarly, response rates were 80% in patients with pNLR less than 3 (the established upper limit of normal) and 30% in patients with pNLR greater than 3 (P = .024).

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed death-1 and its ligand are essential components of therapy across multiple cancer types, Dr. Bah noted in an interview. She explained that prior studies – mostly in patients with lung cancer and head and neck cancers – have also shown pALC and pNLR to be independently associated with poor checkpoint inhibitor response and worse progression-free survival.

“But this is the first study to look at the connection in kidney and bladder cancer in a real-world setting,” she said.

Dr. Bah and colleagues conducted the study to test the hypothesis that “lymphopenia is a marker of immune exhaustion, which is characterized by dysfunctional T cells that have a limited antitumor effect even in the presence of [checkpoint inhibitors] and by the eventual depletion of antitumor lymphocytes,” they wrote in the poster.

Patients included in the study were all those with renal cell carcinoma (n = 13) or bladder-urothelial cancers (n = 7) who received checkpoint inhibitors at one of two medical centers in Louisiana during 2015-2019 and who had outcomes reported. Patients who attained stable disease or had partial or complete responses were categorized as responders. Patients who progressed on checkpoint inhibitors were considered nonresponders.

“Our findings were not a surprise, but they do document, for the first time and in a real-world setting, that pALC and pNLR may have prognostic utility in patients with kidney and bladder cancers who are treated with [checkpoint inhibitors],” Dr. Bah said.

She added that the findings could help determine which patients are candidates for checkpoint inhibitors, but the results require confirmation in a large, prospective study. Dr. Bah reported having no disclosures, and there was no sponsor for this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bah T et al. ASCO-SITC 2020. Abstract 31.

ORLANDO – Response to checkpoint inhibitors was associated with pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (pALC) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (pNLR) in patients with kidney or bladder cancer treated in a real-world setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In a retrospective study of 20 patients, those with lower pALCs and higher pNLRs were less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors.

Tonjeh Bah, MD, of Feist-Weiller Cancer Center at LSU Health Shreveport in Louisiana, and colleagues reported these results in a poster at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Response rates were 75% in patients with pALC greater than 1,000 and 25% in patients with pALC less than 1,000. This difference was statistically significant (P = .027), Dr. Bah noted, adding that the groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, race, and type of checkpoint inhibitors used.

Similarly, response rates were 80% in patients with pNLR less than 3 (the established upper limit of normal) and 30% in patients with pNLR greater than 3 (P = .024).

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed death-1 and its ligand are essential components of therapy across multiple cancer types, Dr. Bah noted in an interview. She explained that prior studies – mostly in patients with lung cancer and head and neck cancers – have also shown pALC and pNLR to be independently associated with poor checkpoint inhibitor response and worse progression-free survival.

“But this is the first study to look at the connection in kidney and bladder cancer in a real-world setting,” she said.

Dr. Bah and colleagues conducted the study to test the hypothesis that “lymphopenia is a marker of immune exhaustion, which is characterized by dysfunctional T cells that have a limited antitumor effect even in the presence of [checkpoint inhibitors] and by the eventual depletion of antitumor lymphocytes,” they wrote in the poster.

Patients included in the study were all those with renal cell carcinoma (n = 13) or bladder-urothelial cancers (n = 7) who received checkpoint inhibitors at one of two medical centers in Louisiana during 2015-2019 and who had outcomes reported. Patients who attained stable disease or had partial or complete responses were categorized as responders. Patients who progressed on checkpoint inhibitors were considered nonresponders.

“Our findings were not a surprise, but they do document, for the first time and in a real-world setting, that pALC and pNLR may have prognostic utility in patients with kidney and bladder cancers who are treated with [checkpoint inhibitors],” Dr. Bah said.

She added that the findings could help determine which patients are candidates for checkpoint inhibitors, but the results require confirmation in a large, prospective study. Dr. Bah reported having no disclosures, and there was no sponsor for this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bah T et al. ASCO-SITC 2020. Abstract 31.

ORLANDO – Response to checkpoint inhibitors was associated with pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (pALC) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (pNLR) in patients with kidney or bladder cancer treated in a real-world setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In a retrospective study of 20 patients, those with lower pALCs and higher pNLRs were less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors.

Tonjeh Bah, MD, of Feist-Weiller Cancer Center at LSU Health Shreveport in Louisiana, and colleagues reported these results in a poster at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Response rates were 75% in patients with pALC greater than 1,000 and 25% in patients with pALC less than 1,000. This difference was statistically significant (P = .027), Dr. Bah noted, adding that the groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, race, and type of checkpoint inhibitors used.

Similarly, response rates were 80% in patients with pNLR less than 3 (the established upper limit of normal) and 30% in patients with pNLR greater than 3 (P = .024).

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed death-1 and its ligand are essential components of therapy across multiple cancer types, Dr. Bah noted in an interview. She explained that prior studies – mostly in patients with lung cancer and head and neck cancers – have also shown pALC and pNLR to be independently associated with poor checkpoint inhibitor response and worse progression-free survival.

“But this is the first study to look at the connection in kidney and bladder cancer in a real-world setting,” she said.

Dr. Bah and colleagues conducted the study to test the hypothesis that “lymphopenia is a marker of immune exhaustion, which is characterized by dysfunctional T cells that have a limited antitumor effect even in the presence of [checkpoint inhibitors] and by the eventual depletion of antitumor lymphocytes,” they wrote in the poster.

Patients included in the study were all those with renal cell carcinoma (n = 13) or bladder-urothelial cancers (n = 7) who received checkpoint inhibitors at one of two medical centers in Louisiana during 2015-2019 and who had outcomes reported. Patients who attained stable disease or had partial or complete responses were categorized as responders. Patients who progressed on checkpoint inhibitors were considered nonresponders.

“Our findings were not a surprise, but they do document, for the first time and in a real-world setting, that pALC and pNLR may have prognostic utility in patients with kidney and bladder cancers who are treated with [checkpoint inhibitors],” Dr. Bah said.

She added that the findings could help determine which patients are candidates for checkpoint inhibitors, but the results require confirmation in a large, prospective study. Dr. Bah reported having no disclosures, and there was no sponsor for this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bah T et al. ASCO-SITC 2020. Abstract 31.

The monoamine oxidase inhibitor phenelzine (Nardil) appeared safe and active in a phase 2 trial of patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

“We sought to investigate if phenelzine would exert an anticancer effect demonstrated by decreasing PSA [prostate-specific antigen] values in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer patients,” study author Mitchell E. Gross, MD, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

The single-arm study included 20 patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer who received primary treatment with either radical prostatectomy (n = 18) or radiotherapy (n = 2). Study subjects had normal levels of free testosterone (50 ng/dL or above) and showed no evidence of metastatic disease on bone and CT imaging.

With respect to dosing, 18 patients were successfully titrated to the target dose of 30 mg of oral phenelzine twice daily. Five of these patients subsequently had their dose increased to 45 mg twice daily. Each dosing cycle was 28 days, with escalations occurring during the first 2 weeks of therapy.

Therapy was continued until disease progression, patient preference, therapy interruption of more than 2 weeks from study-related toxicity, or physician decision.

The primary outcome measured was PSA reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Psychiatric outcomes were also evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

The median treatment duration was 326 days (range, 40-954 days). Among 20 evaluable patients, 5 patients (25%) achieved a PSA reduction of at least 30% from baseline, and 2 patients (10%) achieved a reduction of at least 50% from baseline.

At 12 weeks, 17 patients were still on treatment. Four patients (24%) had PSA reductions of at least 30%, and one patient (6%) had a PSA reduction of at least 50%.

The most common grade 2 or higher phenelzine-related adverse effects were dizziness (35%), hypertension (30%), and edema (10%). Serious toxicities included one case of grade 4 hypertension and two cases of grade 3 syncope, which required treatment discontinuation.

With respect to mood outcomes, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores showed a significant decline in anxiety symptoms but no difference in depressive symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of this study were the small sample size and the absence of a placebo arm. Hence, the results may not accurately reflect long-term clinically relevant outcomes, such as overall survival or disease progression.

“Further studies would be needed to determine if [monoamine oxidase inhibitors], used alone or in combination with other agents, may delay clinical progression and metastasis,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the USC-Taiwan Center for Translational Research and the National Cancer Institute. Some of the authors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Gross ME et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0211-9.

The monoamine oxidase inhibitor phenelzine (Nardil) appeared safe and active in a phase 2 trial of patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

“We sought to investigate if phenelzine would exert an anticancer effect demonstrated by decreasing PSA [prostate-specific antigen] values in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer patients,” study author Mitchell E. Gross, MD, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

The single-arm study included 20 patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer who received primary treatment with either radical prostatectomy (n = 18) or radiotherapy (n = 2). Study subjects had normal levels of free testosterone (50 ng/dL or above) and showed no evidence of metastatic disease on bone and CT imaging.

With respect to dosing, 18 patients were successfully titrated to the target dose of 30 mg of oral phenelzine twice daily. Five of these patients subsequently had their dose increased to 45 mg twice daily. Each dosing cycle was 28 days, with escalations occurring during the first 2 weeks of therapy.

Therapy was continued until disease progression, patient preference, therapy interruption of more than 2 weeks from study-related toxicity, or physician decision.

The primary outcome measured was PSA reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Psychiatric outcomes were also evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

The median treatment duration was 326 days (range, 40-954 days). Among 20 evaluable patients, 5 patients (25%) achieved a PSA reduction of at least 30% from baseline, and 2 patients (10%) achieved a reduction of at least 50% from baseline.

At 12 weeks, 17 patients were still on treatment. Four patients (24%) had PSA reductions of at least 30%, and one patient (6%) had a PSA reduction of at least 50%.

The most common grade 2 or higher phenelzine-related adverse effects were dizziness (35%), hypertension (30%), and edema (10%). Serious toxicities included one case of grade 4 hypertension and two cases of grade 3 syncope, which required treatment discontinuation.

With respect to mood outcomes, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores showed a significant decline in anxiety symptoms but no difference in depressive symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of this study were the small sample size and the absence of a placebo arm. Hence, the results may not accurately reflect long-term clinically relevant outcomes, such as overall survival or disease progression.

“Further studies would be needed to determine if [monoamine oxidase inhibitors], used alone or in combination with other agents, may delay clinical progression and metastasis,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the USC-Taiwan Center for Translational Research and the National Cancer Institute. Some of the authors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Gross ME et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0211-9.

The monoamine oxidase inhibitor phenelzine (Nardil) appeared safe and active in a phase 2 trial of patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

“We sought to investigate if phenelzine would exert an anticancer effect demonstrated by decreasing PSA [prostate-specific antigen] values in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer patients,” study author Mitchell E. Gross, MD, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

The single-arm study included 20 patients with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer who received primary treatment with either radical prostatectomy (n = 18) or radiotherapy (n = 2). Study subjects had normal levels of free testosterone (50 ng/dL or above) and showed no evidence of metastatic disease on bone and CT imaging.

With respect to dosing, 18 patients were successfully titrated to the target dose of 30 mg of oral phenelzine twice daily. Five of these patients subsequently had their dose increased to 45 mg twice daily. Each dosing cycle was 28 days, with escalations occurring during the first 2 weeks of therapy.

Therapy was continued until disease progression, patient preference, therapy interruption of more than 2 weeks from study-related toxicity, or physician decision.

The primary outcome measured was PSA reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Psychiatric outcomes were also evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

The median treatment duration was 326 days (range, 40-954 days). Among 20 evaluable patients, 5 patients (25%) achieved a PSA reduction of at least 30% from baseline, and 2 patients (10%) achieved a reduction of at least 50% from baseline.

At 12 weeks, 17 patients were still on treatment. Four patients (24%) had PSA reductions of at least 30%, and one patient (6%) had a PSA reduction of at least 50%.

The most common grade 2 or higher phenelzine-related adverse effects were dizziness (35%), hypertension (30%), and edema (10%). Serious toxicities included one case of grade 4 hypertension and two cases of grade 3 syncope, which required treatment discontinuation.

With respect to mood outcomes, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores showed a significant decline in anxiety symptoms but no difference in depressive symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of this study were the small sample size and the absence of a placebo arm. Hence, the results may not accurately reflect long-term clinically relevant outcomes, such as overall survival or disease progression.

“Further studies would be needed to determine if [monoamine oxidase inhibitors], used alone or in combination with other agents, may delay clinical progression and metastasis,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the USC-Taiwan Center for Translational Research and the National Cancer Institute. Some of the authors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Gross ME et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0211-9.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

The combination of bevacizumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a phase 1b/2 study, according to researchers.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 45% of patients, which “compares favorably” with other combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, according to study author Arkadiusz Z. Dudek, MD, PhD, of HealthPartners Regions Cancer Care Center in St. Paul, Minn. and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Phase 1b

The phase 1b portion of the study included 13 patients with clear cell mRCC that relapsed after or was refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy. The patients’ median age was 55 years (range, 33-68 years), and most were men (84.6%).

The patients received infusions of pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary objective of the phase 1b component was to determine safety and identify the maximum tolerated dose of the combination.

The overall response rate was 41.7%. Five patients had partial responses, six had stable disease, one had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months, and the median overall survival was 17.9 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed.
 

Phase 2

The phase 2 component included 48 patients with clear cell mRCC, all of whom were treatment naive. Their median age was 61 years (range, 42-84 years), and most were men (68.8%).

Based on the phase 1b data, the phase 2 dose of bevacizumab was 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

After a median time on treatment of 298 days, the overall response rate was 60.9%. One patient achieved a complete response, and two patients had complete responses in target lesions. Of the remaining patients, 25 achieved partial responses, 18 had stable disease, and 2 were unevaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 20.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached at 28.3 months.
 

Safety

In the combined safety analysis, the most frequent treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (25%), proteinuria (10%), adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), and pain/headaches (5.0%).

The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), pneumonitis (3.3%), hepatitis (1.7%), skin rash (1.7%), gastritis (1.7%), hypothyroidism (1.7%), and oral mucositis (1.7%).

Two grade 4 adverse events (hyponatremia and duodenal ulcer) were reported. There were no treatment-related grade 5 events.

“The combination of 200 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15-mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in metastatic RCC,” the authors wrote. “[The combination] could be further tested in patient populations where TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are not well tolerated and can cause early treatment discontinuation.”

This study was funded by Merck. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Dudek AZ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02394.

The combination of bevacizumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a phase 1b/2 study, according to researchers.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 45% of patients, which “compares favorably” with other combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, according to study author Arkadiusz Z. Dudek, MD, PhD, of HealthPartners Regions Cancer Care Center in St. Paul, Minn. and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Phase 1b

The phase 1b portion of the study included 13 patients with clear cell mRCC that relapsed after or was refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy. The patients’ median age was 55 years (range, 33-68 years), and most were men (84.6%).

The patients received infusions of pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary objective of the phase 1b component was to determine safety and identify the maximum tolerated dose of the combination.

The overall response rate was 41.7%. Five patients had partial responses, six had stable disease, one had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months, and the median overall survival was 17.9 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed.
 

Phase 2

The phase 2 component included 48 patients with clear cell mRCC, all of whom were treatment naive. Their median age was 61 years (range, 42-84 years), and most were men (68.8%).

Based on the phase 1b data, the phase 2 dose of bevacizumab was 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

After a median time on treatment of 298 days, the overall response rate was 60.9%. One patient achieved a complete response, and two patients had complete responses in target lesions. Of the remaining patients, 25 achieved partial responses, 18 had stable disease, and 2 were unevaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 20.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached at 28.3 months.
 

Safety

In the combined safety analysis, the most frequent treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (25%), proteinuria (10%), adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), and pain/headaches (5.0%).

The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), pneumonitis (3.3%), hepatitis (1.7%), skin rash (1.7%), gastritis (1.7%), hypothyroidism (1.7%), and oral mucositis (1.7%).

Two grade 4 adverse events (hyponatremia and duodenal ulcer) were reported. There were no treatment-related grade 5 events.

“The combination of 200 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15-mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in metastatic RCC,” the authors wrote. “[The combination] could be further tested in patient populations where TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are not well tolerated and can cause early treatment discontinuation.”

This study was funded by Merck. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Dudek AZ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02394.

The combination of bevacizumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a phase 1b/2 study, according to researchers.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 45% of patients, which “compares favorably” with other combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, according to study author Arkadiusz Z. Dudek, MD, PhD, of HealthPartners Regions Cancer Care Center in St. Paul, Minn. and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Phase 1b

The phase 1b portion of the study included 13 patients with clear cell mRCC that relapsed after or was refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy. The patients’ median age was 55 years (range, 33-68 years), and most were men (84.6%).

The patients received infusions of pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary objective of the phase 1b component was to determine safety and identify the maximum tolerated dose of the combination.

The overall response rate was 41.7%. Five patients had partial responses, six had stable disease, one had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months, and the median overall survival was 17.9 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed.
 

Phase 2

The phase 2 component included 48 patients with clear cell mRCC, all of whom were treatment naive. Their median age was 61 years (range, 42-84 years), and most were men (68.8%).

Based on the phase 1b data, the phase 2 dose of bevacizumab was 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

After a median time on treatment of 298 days, the overall response rate was 60.9%. One patient achieved a complete response, and two patients had complete responses in target lesions. Of the remaining patients, 25 achieved partial responses, 18 had stable disease, and 2 were unevaluable.

The median progression-free survival was 20.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached at 28.3 months.
 

Safety

In the combined safety analysis, the most frequent treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (25%), proteinuria (10%), adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), and pain/headaches (5.0%).

The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were adrenal insufficiency (6.7%), pneumonitis (3.3%), hepatitis (1.7%), skin rash (1.7%), gastritis (1.7%), hypothyroidism (1.7%), and oral mucositis (1.7%).

Two grade 4 adverse events (hyponatremia and duodenal ulcer) were reported. There were no treatment-related grade 5 events.

“The combination of 200 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15-mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in metastatic RCC,” the authors wrote. “[The combination] could be further tested in patient populations where TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are not well tolerated and can cause early treatment discontinuation.”

This study was funded by Merck. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Dudek AZ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02394.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.