Gynecologic Cancer

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Curiosity drove the research’

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

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

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

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

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

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

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

Favorable genomic characteristics

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

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

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

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

Moving to precision medicine

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Curiosity drove the research’

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

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

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

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

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

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

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

Favorable genomic characteristics

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

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

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

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

Moving to precision medicine

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Curiosity drove the research’

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

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

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

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

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

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

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

Favorable genomic characteristics

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

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

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

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

Moving to precision medicine

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.

Carboplatin plus paclitaxel (TC) should be the global first-line standard treatment for advanced endometrial cancer, new findings suggest. The combination proved to be noninferior to paclitaxel-doxorubicin-cisplatin (TAP) in terms of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival, and with lower toxicity.

Overall survival was a median of 37 months for TC and 41 months for TAP, and there were more adverse events of grade 3 or higher with TAP.

The data were initially presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. In the original presentation, lead author David Scott Miller, MD, said this combination should be the standard of care in this setting. Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“This subsequent long-term follow-up publication confirmed that,” he said in an interview. “TAP is now rarely used.”

The results have now been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The Gynecologic Oncology Group 177 trial established TAP about a decade earlier as the standard for systemic treatment of stage III-IV and recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the regimen was associated with substantially more toxicity than doxorubicin-cisplatin.

Phase 2 trials of TC suggested that the combination was active in endometrial cancer, the authors noted. They hypothesized that doxorubicin could be omitted from the regimen and that carboplatin could be substituted for cisplatin.
 

Equivalent survival, lower toxicity

In the current trial, Dr. Miller and colleagues sought to determine whether TC was therapeutically equivalent or noninferior to TAP with regard to survival outcomes. Secondary endpoints involved the toxicity profile of TC, compared with TAP. The two regimens were also compared with respect to patient-reported neurotoxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

From 2003 to 2009, 1,381 women with stage III, stage IV, and recurrent endometrial cancers were enrolled in the phase 3 GOG0209 trial. Patients were treated with doxorubicin 45 mg/m² and cisplatin 50 mg/m² (day 1), followed by paclitaxel 160 mg/m² (day 2) with granulocyte colony–stimulating factor or paclitaxel 175 mg/m² and carboplatin area under the curve 6 (day 1) every 21 days for seven cycles.

After treatment was completed, patients were followed quarterly for 2 years, semiannually for 3 years, and then annually until death. Most of the patients (61%) had measurable or recurrent disease at baseline.

In this updated analysis, with a median follow-up of 124 months, about two-thirds (>65%) of the patients had died; 28% remain alive without evidence of cancer. The adjusted ratio of death hazard of TC versus TAP was 1.002; for progression, the HR of TC to TAP was 1.032.

Median progression-free survival for TAP versus TC was 14 months versus 13 months, and for overall survival, 41 months versus 37 months.

As for adverse events, neutropenic fever was reported in 7% of patients who received TAP and in 6% of those who received TC. The rate of sensory neuropathy was greater among patients who received TAP (26% vs. 20%; P = .40), as was the rate of thrombocytopenia of grade ≥3 (23% vs. 12%), vomiting (7% vs. 4%), diarrhea (6% vs. 2%), and metabolic toxicities (14% vs. 8%). The rate of neutropenia was greater with TC (52% vs. 80%).

Data on HRQoL were collected from the first 538 patients enrolled before March 26, 2007. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and then at 6 weeks, 15 weeks, and 26 weeks. At 6 weeks, the TC group had higher scores on physical well-being and functional well-being (2.1-point difference; 0.3 to approximately 3.9 points; P = .009; effect size, 0.19). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at 15 and 26 weeks.

On the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/GOG-Neurotoxicity four-item measure of sensory neuropathy (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale, scores were higher (indicating fewer neurotoxic symptoms) for patients in the TC group by 1.4 points (0.4 to approximately 2.5 points; P = .003; effect size, 0.64) at 26 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at 6 and 15 weeks.

Dr. Miller noted that TC became the “backbone or control arm for most subsequent trials,” such as those evaluating immunotherapy and other agents in this setting.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the GOG Administrative Office, the GOG Statistical Office, NRG Oncology (1 U10 CA180822), NRG Operations, and the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Miller has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has been on the speakers’ bureaus for Clovis Oncology and Genentech; and has received institutional research funding from US Biotest, Advenchen Laboratories, Millennium, Tesaro, Xenetic Biosciences, Advaxis, Janssen, Aeterna Zentaris, TRACON Pharma, Pfizer, Immunogen, Mateon Therapeutics, and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

Carboplatin plus paclitaxel (TC) should be the global first-line standard treatment for advanced endometrial cancer, new findings suggest. The combination proved to be noninferior to paclitaxel-doxorubicin-cisplatin (TAP) in terms of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival, and with lower toxicity.

Overall survival was a median of 37 months for TC and 41 months for TAP, and there were more adverse events of grade 3 or higher with TAP.

The data were initially presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. In the original presentation, lead author David Scott Miller, MD, said this combination should be the standard of care in this setting. Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“This subsequent long-term follow-up publication confirmed that,” he said in an interview. “TAP is now rarely used.”

The results have now been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The Gynecologic Oncology Group 177 trial established TAP about a decade earlier as the standard for systemic treatment of stage III-IV and recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the regimen was associated with substantially more toxicity than doxorubicin-cisplatin.

Phase 2 trials of TC suggested that the combination was active in endometrial cancer, the authors noted. They hypothesized that doxorubicin could be omitted from the regimen and that carboplatin could be substituted for cisplatin.
 

Equivalent survival, lower toxicity

In the current trial, Dr. Miller and colleagues sought to determine whether TC was therapeutically equivalent or noninferior to TAP with regard to survival outcomes. Secondary endpoints involved the toxicity profile of TC, compared with TAP. The two regimens were also compared with respect to patient-reported neurotoxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

From 2003 to 2009, 1,381 women with stage III, stage IV, and recurrent endometrial cancers were enrolled in the phase 3 GOG0209 trial. Patients were treated with doxorubicin 45 mg/m² and cisplatin 50 mg/m² (day 1), followed by paclitaxel 160 mg/m² (day 2) with granulocyte colony–stimulating factor or paclitaxel 175 mg/m² and carboplatin area under the curve 6 (day 1) every 21 days for seven cycles.

After treatment was completed, patients were followed quarterly for 2 years, semiannually for 3 years, and then annually until death. Most of the patients (61%) had measurable or recurrent disease at baseline.

In this updated analysis, with a median follow-up of 124 months, about two-thirds (>65%) of the patients had died; 28% remain alive without evidence of cancer. The adjusted ratio of death hazard of TC versus TAP was 1.002; for progression, the HR of TC to TAP was 1.032.

Median progression-free survival for TAP versus TC was 14 months versus 13 months, and for overall survival, 41 months versus 37 months.

As for adverse events, neutropenic fever was reported in 7% of patients who received TAP and in 6% of those who received TC. The rate of sensory neuropathy was greater among patients who received TAP (26% vs. 20%; P = .40), as was the rate of thrombocytopenia of grade ≥3 (23% vs. 12%), vomiting (7% vs. 4%), diarrhea (6% vs. 2%), and metabolic toxicities (14% vs. 8%). The rate of neutropenia was greater with TC (52% vs. 80%).

Data on HRQoL were collected from the first 538 patients enrolled before March 26, 2007. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and then at 6 weeks, 15 weeks, and 26 weeks. At 6 weeks, the TC group had higher scores on physical well-being and functional well-being (2.1-point difference; 0.3 to approximately 3.9 points; P = .009; effect size, 0.19). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at 15 and 26 weeks.

On the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/GOG-Neurotoxicity four-item measure of sensory neuropathy (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale, scores were higher (indicating fewer neurotoxic symptoms) for patients in the TC group by 1.4 points (0.4 to approximately 2.5 points; P = .003; effect size, 0.64) at 26 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at 6 and 15 weeks.

Dr. Miller noted that TC became the “backbone or control arm for most subsequent trials,” such as those evaluating immunotherapy and other agents in this setting.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the GOG Administrative Office, the GOG Statistical Office, NRG Oncology (1 U10 CA180822), NRG Operations, and the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Miller has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has been on the speakers’ bureaus for Clovis Oncology and Genentech; and has received institutional research funding from US Biotest, Advenchen Laboratories, Millennium, Tesaro, Xenetic Biosciences, Advaxis, Janssen, Aeterna Zentaris, TRACON Pharma, Pfizer, Immunogen, Mateon Therapeutics, and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

Carboplatin plus paclitaxel (TC) should be the global first-line standard treatment for advanced endometrial cancer, new findings suggest. The combination proved to be noninferior to paclitaxel-doxorubicin-cisplatin (TAP) in terms of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival, and with lower toxicity.

Overall survival was a median of 37 months for TC and 41 months for TAP, and there were more adverse events of grade 3 or higher with TAP.

The data were initially presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. In the original presentation, lead author David Scott Miller, MD, said this combination should be the standard of care in this setting. Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“This subsequent long-term follow-up publication confirmed that,” he said in an interview. “TAP is now rarely used.”

The results have now been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The Gynecologic Oncology Group 177 trial established TAP about a decade earlier as the standard for systemic treatment of stage III-IV and recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the regimen was associated with substantially more toxicity than doxorubicin-cisplatin.

Phase 2 trials of TC suggested that the combination was active in endometrial cancer, the authors noted. They hypothesized that doxorubicin could be omitted from the regimen and that carboplatin could be substituted for cisplatin.
 

Equivalent survival, lower toxicity

In the current trial, Dr. Miller and colleagues sought to determine whether TC was therapeutically equivalent or noninferior to TAP with regard to survival outcomes. Secondary endpoints involved the toxicity profile of TC, compared with TAP. The two regimens were also compared with respect to patient-reported neurotoxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

From 2003 to 2009, 1,381 women with stage III, stage IV, and recurrent endometrial cancers were enrolled in the phase 3 GOG0209 trial. Patients were treated with doxorubicin 45 mg/m² and cisplatin 50 mg/m² (day 1), followed by paclitaxel 160 mg/m² (day 2) with granulocyte colony–stimulating factor or paclitaxel 175 mg/m² and carboplatin area under the curve 6 (day 1) every 21 days for seven cycles.

After treatment was completed, patients were followed quarterly for 2 years, semiannually for 3 years, and then annually until death. Most of the patients (61%) had measurable or recurrent disease at baseline.

In this updated analysis, with a median follow-up of 124 months, about two-thirds (>65%) of the patients had died; 28% remain alive without evidence of cancer. The adjusted ratio of death hazard of TC versus TAP was 1.002; for progression, the HR of TC to TAP was 1.032.

Median progression-free survival for TAP versus TC was 14 months versus 13 months, and for overall survival, 41 months versus 37 months.

As for adverse events, neutropenic fever was reported in 7% of patients who received TAP and in 6% of those who received TC. The rate of sensory neuropathy was greater among patients who received TAP (26% vs. 20%; P = .40), as was the rate of thrombocytopenia of grade ≥3 (23% vs. 12%), vomiting (7% vs. 4%), diarrhea (6% vs. 2%), and metabolic toxicities (14% vs. 8%). The rate of neutropenia was greater with TC (52% vs. 80%).

Data on HRQoL were collected from the first 538 patients enrolled before March 26, 2007. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and then at 6 weeks, 15 weeks, and 26 weeks. At 6 weeks, the TC group had higher scores on physical well-being and functional well-being (2.1-point difference; 0.3 to approximately 3.9 points; P = .009; effect size, 0.19). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at 15 and 26 weeks.

On the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/GOG-Neurotoxicity four-item measure of sensory neuropathy (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale, scores were higher (indicating fewer neurotoxic symptoms) for patients in the TC group by 1.4 points (0.4 to approximately 2.5 points; P = .003; effect size, 0.64) at 26 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at 6 and 15 weeks.

Dr. Miller noted that TC became the “backbone or control arm for most subsequent trials,” such as those evaluating immunotherapy and other agents in this setting.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the GOG Administrative Office, the GOG Statistical Office, NRG Oncology (1 U10 CA180822), NRG Operations, and the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Miller has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has been on the speakers’ bureaus for Clovis Oncology and Genentech; and has received institutional research funding from US Biotest, Advenchen Laboratories, Millennium, Tesaro, Xenetic Biosciences, Advaxis, Janssen, Aeterna Zentaris, TRACON Pharma, Pfizer, Immunogen, Mateon Therapeutics, and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

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

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

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

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

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

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

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

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

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

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Webside’ manner

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

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

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

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

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

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

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

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

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

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

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

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

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Webside’ manner

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

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

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

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

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

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

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

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

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

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

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

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

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Webside’ manner

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

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

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


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

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Having a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions on the vulva may identify melanoma early, according to a lecture at virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Pigmented brown or black vulvar lesions occur in approximately 10% of women, and they may be normal and benign.

“Often we will see a pigmented lesion on the vulva and think that there is nothing to worry about,” said Melissa Mauskar, MD.

Lesions could be angiokeratomas, petechiae, purpura, melanosis, and nevi, for example. Seborrheic keratoses can mimic melanoma. “If it looks odd, don’t be afraid to biopsy it,” said Dr. Mauskar, assistant professor of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Characteristics of melanoma, covered by the mnemonic ABCDE, include asymmetry, borders that are irregular, coloring that is uneven, diameter greater than 7 mm, and evolution over time.

When biopsying a lesion because of concerns about melanoma, the goal is to remove the whole lesion at once, Dr. Mauskar said.

In a recent U.S. population-based study of more than 1,800 patients with malignant melanoma of the vulva or vagina (including 1,400 patients with vulvar melanoma and 463 patients with vaginal melanoma), median disease-specific survival was 99 months for vulvar melanoma and 19 months for vaginal melanoma.

Patients with vaginal melanoma were more likely than patients with vulvar melanoma to have nodular lesions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system predicts vulvar melanoma outcomes, the researchers found. In addition, lymph node status and mitotic rate were important predictors of survival.

A wide local excision is the mainstay of therapy for melanoma. Other therapeutic advances are “changing the survival curves for these patients, especially when we can find things early,” Dr. Mauskar said.

Photographing lesions can help doctors monitor them over time, she added.

It is important for dermatologists to include the vulva in skin exams and for gynecologists to have a low threshold to biopsy atypical pigmented lesions, Dr. Mauskar said. “Having a very low threshold for biopsy ... will increase our chances of finding these lesions when they are more at the superficial spreading phase as opposed to the nodular phase,” she said.

Capturing the depth of a tumor within the confines of a biopsy may help accurately stage malignant melanoma, Jason Reutter, MD, a pathologist in Hickory, N.C., said in a separate presentation. He suggested trying to get around the lesion with a punch biopsy if possible. A shave biopsy may be advantageous for larger macular lesions. To diagnose one melanoma, doctors may have to biopsy many lesions, Dr. Reutter noted.

At one institution, the number of skin biopsies needed to diagnose skin cancer ranged from 2.82 to 6.55, depending on the type of clinician, according to a recent study. The number of biopsies needed to detect one melanoma was greater – between 14 and 54 – depending on type of clinician.

For larger lesions, scouting biopsies of different areas may be the best approach, Dr. Reutter said.

Dr. Mauskar and Dr. Reutter had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical cancer screening is a routine procedure, but in rare instances, there can be medical complications. A new study finds that, compared with women who have normal results, women who are diagnosed with an invasive malignancy have an increased risk for iatrogenic injuries.

Researchers in Sweden analyzed data on more than 3 million women who had undergone cervical cancer screening. The team found that 42 iatrogenic injuries that required at least 2 days of hospitalization occurred during the diagnostic work-up of women who had an abnormal screening test.

“Although cervical cancer screening is one of the most successful cancer prevention programs ... our research indicates that women with invasive cervical cancer experienced medical complications and psychological stress during their diagnostic work-up, although at a very low level,” commented corresponding author Qing Shen, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

The study was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Injuries can occur with diagnostic evaluation for cervical cancer,” commented Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, FACOG, director of perinatal services at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center, New York City Health and Hospitals System, who was not involved in the study.

“Given the fact that neovascularization occurs with cancers, a large biopsy in such a circumstance could lead to a hematoma or excessive blood loss. It rarely occurs but most certainly is possible,” said Dr. Gaither.

Also weighing in with comments, Cathy Popadiuk, MD, FRCS, an associate professor of medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, said the findings are reflective of the real-world and North American experience.

“There are indeed rare bad things that can happen during diagnostic work-up of abnormal pap smears, and usually this is with associated other disease, such as actual cancer or fibroids that can also bleed and may be in the cervix, etc.,” she told this news organization. “And definitely, when there is undetected cancer, this can bleed, requiring transfusion and hospital admission.”

Dr. Popadiuk pointed out that Sweden may be more liberal in admitting patients to hospital, whereas in North America, “we are trying to move away from inpatient care.” She added, “When you are getting these relatively minor procedures, you don’t expect something bad to happen in the clinic.”

Women may become anxious, and admission is the easiest way to arrange for care such as transfusions or observation for more bleeding, she noted. In addition, vaginal packing may be needed to control hemorrhage, and “with vaginal packing, women are unable to void and need a Foley catheter, and that, again, cannot be managed at home easily,” she explained. “After bleeding settles, the vaginal pack is removed, often the next day.” This may be why some women are admitted to hospital.
 

Increased risk of injury

In a previous study, Dr. Shen and colleagues found there was an increased risk for injuries during the period before and after a diagnosis of any cancer (BMJ. 2016;354:i4218). Those findings suggested the interval between first suspicion of cancer and diagnosis or initiation of treatment might be a high-risk time for injuries in cancer care.

In this latest study, they assessed whether there was a similar increase in injury risk among patients screened for cervical cancer. Using the Swedish Total Population Register, they identified 3,016,307 women who had undergone cervical screening during the period 2001-2012.

The final analysis included 1,853,510 women whose pap smear results were normal; 22,435 women who were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); 20,692 women with CIN2; 36,542 women with CIN3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS); and 5,189 women with invasive cervical cancer.

The team found that, among women who had an abnormal screening test, 42 iatrogenic injuries occurred that required at least 2 days of hospital admission. The highest risk was among women diagnosed with invasive cancer. The risk was also increased among women diagnosed with CIN3/AIS, but not among women with lower grades of CIN.

The most common types of iatrogenic injuries were hemorrhage or hematoma and infections. Among all groups of women, the incidence rate of injuries that were caused by medical procedures and care was greater than that of injuries caused by drugs or biological substances.

A total of 91 noniatrogenic injuries that required at least 1 day of hospitalization were identified. The risk was increased among women with invasive cervical cancer but not for women with other cervical abnormalities. The most common type of noniatrogenic injury was unintentional injuries.

The study was sponsored by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. One author received a Karolinska Institute Senior Researcher Award and a Strategic Research Area in Epidemiology Award, and one author received a grant from the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Shen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Popadiuk has received personal fees and nonfinancial support as a member of the OncoSim Initiative from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
 

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

Cervical cancer screening is a routine procedure, but in rare instances, there can be medical complications. A new study finds that, compared with women who have normal results, women who are diagnosed with an invasive malignancy have an increased risk for iatrogenic injuries.

Researchers in Sweden analyzed data on more than 3 million women who had undergone cervical cancer screening. The team found that 42 iatrogenic injuries that required at least 2 days of hospitalization occurred during the diagnostic work-up of women who had an abnormal screening test.

“Although cervical cancer screening is one of the most successful cancer prevention programs ... our research indicates that women with invasive cervical cancer experienced medical complications and psychological stress during their diagnostic work-up, although at a very low level,” commented corresponding author Qing Shen, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

The study was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Injuries can occur with diagnostic evaluation for cervical cancer,” commented Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, FACOG, director of perinatal services at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center, New York City Health and Hospitals System, who was not involved in the study.

“Given the fact that neovascularization occurs with cancers, a large biopsy in such a circumstance could lead to a hematoma or excessive blood loss. It rarely occurs but most certainly is possible,” said Dr. Gaither.

Also weighing in with comments, Cathy Popadiuk, MD, FRCS, an associate professor of medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, said the findings are reflective of the real-world and North American experience.

“There are indeed rare bad things that can happen during diagnostic work-up of abnormal pap smears, and usually this is with associated other disease, such as actual cancer or fibroids that can also bleed and may be in the cervix, etc.,” she told this news organization. “And definitely, when there is undetected cancer, this can bleed, requiring transfusion and hospital admission.”

Dr. Popadiuk pointed out that Sweden may be more liberal in admitting patients to hospital, whereas in North America, “we are trying to move away from inpatient care.” She added, “When you are getting these relatively minor procedures, you don’t expect something bad to happen in the clinic.”

Women may become anxious, and admission is the easiest way to arrange for care such as transfusions or observation for more bleeding, she noted. In addition, vaginal packing may be needed to control hemorrhage, and “with vaginal packing, women are unable to void and need a Foley catheter, and that, again, cannot be managed at home easily,” she explained. “After bleeding settles, the vaginal pack is removed, often the next day.” This may be why some women are admitted to hospital.
 

Increased risk of injury

In a previous study, Dr. Shen and colleagues found there was an increased risk for injuries during the period before and after a diagnosis of any cancer (BMJ. 2016;354:i4218). Those findings suggested the interval between first suspicion of cancer and diagnosis or initiation of treatment might be a high-risk time for injuries in cancer care.

In this latest study, they assessed whether there was a similar increase in injury risk among patients screened for cervical cancer. Using the Swedish Total Population Register, they identified 3,016,307 women who had undergone cervical screening during the period 2001-2012.

The final analysis included 1,853,510 women whose pap smear results were normal; 22,435 women who were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); 20,692 women with CIN2; 36,542 women with CIN3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS); and 5,189 women with invasive cervical cancer.

The team found that, among women who had an abnormal screening test, 42 iatrogenic injuries occurred that required at least 2 days of hospital admission. The highest risk was among women diagnosed with invasive cancer. The risk was also increased among women diagnosed with CIN3/AIS, but not among women with lower grades of CIN.

The most common types of iatrogenic injuries were hemorrhage or hematoma and infections. Among all groups of women, the incidence rate of injuries that were caused by medical procedures and care was greater than that of injuries caused by drugs or biological substances.

A total of 91 noniatrogenic injuries that required at least 1 day of hospitalization were identified. The risk was increased among women with invasive cervical cancer but not for women with other cervical abnormalities. The most common type of noniatrogenic injury was unintentional injuries.

The study was sponsored by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. One author received a Karolinska Institute Senior Researcher Award and a Strategic Research Area in Epidemiology Award, and one author received a grant from the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Shen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Popadiuk has received personal fees and nonfinancial support as a member of the OncoSim Initiative from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
 

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

Cervical cancer screening is a routine procedure, but in rare instances, there can be medical complications. A new study finds that, compared with women who have normal results, women who are diagnosed with an invasive malignancy have an increased risk for iatrogenic injuries.

Researchers in Sweden analyzed data on more than 3 million women who had undergone cervical cancer screening. The team found that 42 iatrogenic injuries that required at least 2 days of hospitalization occurred during the diagnostic work-up of women who had an abnormal screening test.

“Although cervical cancer screening is one of the most successful cancer prevention programs ... our research indicates that women with invasive cervical cancer experienced medical complications and psychological stress during their diagnostic work-up, although at a very low level,” commented corresponding author Qing Shen, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

The study was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Injuries can occur with diagnostic evaluation for cervical cancer,” commented Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, FACOG, director of perinatal services at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center, New York City Health and Hospitals System, who was not involved in the study.

“Given the fact that neovascularization occurs with cancers, a large biopsy in such a circumstance could lead to a hematoma or excessive blood loss. It rarely occurs but most certainly is possible,” said Dr. Gaither.

Also weighing in with comments, Cathy Popadiuk, MD, FRCS, an associate professor of medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, said the findings are reflective of the real-world and North American experience.

“There are indeed rare bad things that can happen during diagnostic work-up of abnormal pap smears, and usually this is with associated other disease, such as actual cancer or fibroids that can also bleed and may be in the cervix, etc.,” she told this news organization. “And definitely, when there is undetected cancer, this can bleed, requiring transfusion and hospital admission.”

Dr. Popadiuk pointed out that Sweden may be more liberal in admitting patients to hospital, whereas in North America, “we are trying to move away from inpatient care.” She added, “When you are getting these relatively minor procedures, you don’t expect something bad to happen in the clinic.”

Women may become anxious, and admission is the easiest way to arrange for care such as transfusions or observation for more bleeding, she noted. In addition, vaginal packing may be needed to control hemorrhage, and “with vaginal packing, women are unable to void and need a Foley catheter, and that, again, cannot be managed at home easily,” she explained. “After bleeding settles, the vaginal pack is removed, often the next day.” This may be why some women are admitted to hospital.
 

Increased risk of injury

In a previous study, Dr. Shen and colleagues found there was an increased risk for injuries during the period before and after a diagnosis of any cancer (BMJ. 2016;354:i4218). Those findings suggested the interval between first suspicion of cancer and diagnosis or initiation of treatment might be a high-risk time for injuries in cancer care.

In this latest study, they assessed whether there was a similar increase in injury risk among patients screened for cervical cancer. Using the Swedish Total Population Register, they identified 3,016,307 women who had undergone cervical screening during the period 2001-2012.

The final analysis included 1,853,510 women whose pap smear results were normal; 22,435 women who were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); 20,692 women with CIN2; 36,542 women with CIN3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS); and 5,189 women with invasive cervical cancer.

The team found that, among women who had an abnormal screening test, 42 iatrogenic injuries occurred that required at least 2 days of hospital admission. The highest risk was among women diagnosed with invasive cancer. The risk was also increased among women diagnosed with CIN3/AIS, but not among women with lower grades of CIN.

The most common types of iatrogenic injuries were hemorrhage or hematoma and infections. Among all groups of women, the incidence rate of injuries that were caused by medical procedures and care was greater than that of injuries caused by drugs or biological substances.

A total of 91 noniatrogenic injuries that required at least 1 day of hospitalization were identified. The risk was increased among women with invasive cervical cancer but not for women with other cervical abnormalities. The most common type of noniatrogenic injury was unintentional injuries.

The study was sponsored by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. One author received a Karolinska Institute Senior Researcher Award and a Strategic Research Area in Epidemiology Award, and one author received a grant from the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Shen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Popadiuk has received personal fees and nonfinancial support as a member of the OncoSim Initiative from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
 

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