User login
Doctors Endorsing Products on X May Not Disclose Company Ties
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.
The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.
What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.
Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.
While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.
Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.
Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.
Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.
The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.
Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.
In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.
The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.
Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).
“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One Patient Changed This Oncologist’s View of Hope. Here’s How.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
Gynecologic Oncology Consult: Update on Endometrial Cancer Treatment
While rates of most other cancers have declined or plateaued, the incidence and mortality rate of endometrial cancer continue to rise.1 The landscape of endometrial cancer treatment has evolved quickly over the past 2-3 years. While surgery and radiation therapy remain the mainstay of treatment for early-stage disease, the development of multiple targeted therapeutics has led to additional treatment options in advanced-stage disease and more aggressive tumor types, which are both associated with a poorer prognosis.
In this update, we highlight the recent advances in these targeted therapies in endometrial cancer. We review the landmark NRG-GY018 and RUBY trials, which demonstrated that checkpoint inhibitors improve outcomes in women with advanced endometrial cancer. We discuss an immunotherapy and antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination useful in certain tumors lacking biomarker expression. We also highlight progress against endometrial cancers that overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), demonstrated in the DESTINY PanTumor-02 trial.
PD-1 inhibitors
Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory receptor expressed on T cells that binds to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1 is expressed on many immune cells but can also be expressed on tumor cells. The interaction of PD-L1 expressed on the surface of endometrial cancer cells with the PD-1 receptor on T cells results in diminished T-cell function, eliminating the immune system’s ability to attack the tumor cells. Treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor prevents this ligand-receptor interaction and restores cancer-fighting function to T cells.
Pembrolizumab, an antibody against the PD-1 receptor, has been used as single-agent treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer since the KEYNOTE-158 study demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumors.2
Additionally, in 2022, Makker et al. published results from a phase 3 trial3 evaluating immunotherapy in the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer, specifically in patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) tumors. They compared the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of VEGF, to physician’s choice next-line chemotherapy in over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. They found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved from a median of 3.8 months with chemotherapy to a median of 6.6 months with pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in the pMMR population. Overall survival was also improved from 12 months to 17.4 months in the pMMR population.
With the clear benefit of immunotherapy in the recurrent setting established, Eskander and colleagues were the first to evaluate treatment with pembrolizumab as upfront treatment in the NRG-GY018 trial,4 comparing standard first-line chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) with or without the addition of pembrolizumab. This randomized, international, phase 3 trial included over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology except carcinosarcoma. Patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel with either pembrolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance pembrolizumab or placebo. The results showed an improvement in PFS with the addition of immunotherapy, with a risk of disease progression or death with pembrolizumab 70% lower than with placebo in patients with dMMR tumors and 46% lower than with placebo in patients with pMMR tumors.
In the similar randomized, international, phase 3 RUBY trial,5 Mirza and colleagues compared standard chemotherapy with or without the addition of another PD-1 inhibitor, dostarlimab, in almost 500 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology. They found that the addition of dostarlimab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved PFS. Unpublished data presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting in March also demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.6 As in NRG-GY018, they found a substantial benefit again in the dMMR population.
The results of these three landmark trials demonstrate the increasing role for immunotherapy in endometrial cancer, especially at the time of initial treatment, and how biomarkers can help direct treatment options.
Takeaway
Use of PD-1 inhibitors improves clinical outcomes in both the upfront and recurrent treatment settings. The magnitude of benefit of treatment with PD-1 inhibitors is greater in patients with dMMR tumors.
Anti-HER2 therapies
HER2 is a cell surface protein that can become overexpressed and promote tumorigenesis. It is used as a prognostic biomarker and a therapeutic target in breast, stomach, and colon cancer, but it has also been identified at high rates (20%-30%) in the most aggressive histologic subtypes in endometrial cancer (serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma). Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against HER2, most commonly used in HER2-positive breast cancer. In 2018, a phase 2 trial demonstrated that trastuzumab combined with standard chemotherapy improved PFS in serous endometrial cancers that overexpress HER2.7 These results were important and promising given both the poor prognosis associated with the aggressive serous histology and the relative lack of effective therapies at the time of recurrence.
Recently, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have come to the forefront of cancer-directed therapies. ADCs deliver chemotherapy agents directly to cancer cells via a monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific target on the cancer cells. Trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) is an ADC consisting of an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a cleavable linker. T-DXd was evaluated in the tumor-agnostic phase 2 DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial,8 which included endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer cohorts, in addition to four other nongynecologic malignancies. In this study, 40 patients with advanced or recurrent malignancies overexpressing HER2 in each cohort were treated with T-DXd.
The results within the endometrial cancer cohort were particularly promising. The overall response rate in endometrial cancer was an astounding 57.5% with a median PFS of over 11 months. Even higher response rates were seen in endometrial cancer patients whose tumors demonstrated higher rates of HER2 overexpression. These results are unprecedented in a cohort in which most patients had seen at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Ocular and pulmonary toxicities are of particular interest with use of ADCs, but they were mostly low grade and manageable in this study.
Takeaway
Anti-HER2 therapies, including antibody-drug conjugates, are effective in treating patients with some of the highest-risk endometrial cancers when they overexpress this protein.
Dr. Haag is a gynecologic oncology fellow in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Siegel R et al. CA Cancer J. 2024;74(1):12-49.
2. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1-10.
3. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):437-48.
4. Eskander RN et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2159-70.
5. Mirza MR et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2145-58.
6. Powell MA et al, editors. Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, 2024; San Diego, CA.
7. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2044-51.
8. Meric-Bernstam F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(1):47-58.
While rates of most other cancers have declined or plateaued, the incidence and mortality rate of endometrial cancer continue to rise.1 The landscape of endometrial cancer treatment has evolved quickly over the past 2-3 years. While surgery and radiation therapy remain the mainstay of treatment for early-stage disease, the development of multiple targeted therapeutics has led to additional treatment options in advanced-stage disease and more aggressive tumor types, which are both associated with a poorer prognosis.
In this update, we highlight the recent advances in these targeted therapies in endometrial cancer. We review the landmark NRG-GY018 and RUBY trials, which demonstrated that checkpoint inhibitors improve outcomes in women with advanced endometrial cancer. We discuss an immunotherapy and antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination useful in certain tumors lacking biomarker expression. We also highlight progress against endometrial cancers that overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), demonstrated in the DESTINY PanTumor-02 trial.
PD-1 inhibitors
Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory receptor expressed on T cells that binds to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1 is expressed on many immune cells but can also be expressed on tumor cells. The interaction of PD-L1 expressed on the surface of endometrial cancer cells with the PD-1 receptor on T cells results in diminished T-cell function, eliminating the immune system’s ability to attack the tumor cells. Treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor prevents this ligand-receptor interaction and restores cancer-fighting function to T cells.
Pembrolizumab, an antibody against the PD-1 receptor, has been used as single-agent treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer since the KEYNOTE-158 study demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumors.2
Additionally, in 2022, Makker et al. published results from a phase 3 trial3 evaluating immunotherapy in the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer, specifically in patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) tumors. They compared the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of VEGF, to physician’s choice next-line chemotherapy in over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. They found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved from a median of 3.8 months with chemotherapy to a median of 6.6 months with pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in the pMMR population. Overall survival was also improved from 12 months to 17.4 months in the pMMR population.
With the clear benefit of immunotherapy in the recurrent setting established, Eskander and colleagues were the first to evaluate treatment with pembrolizumab as upfront treatment in the NRG-GY018 trial,4 comparing standard first-line chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) with or without the addition of pembrolizumab. This randomized, international, phase 3 trial included over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology except carcinosarcoma. Patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel with either pembrolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance pembrolizumab or placebo. The results showed an improvement in PFS with the addition of immunotherapy, with a risk of disease progression or death with pembrolizumab 70% lower than with placebo in patients with dMMR tumors and 46% lower than with placebo in patients with pMMR tumors.
In the similar randomized, international, phase 3 RUBY trial,5 Mirza and colleagues compared standard chemotherapy with or without the addition of another PD-1 inhibitor, dostarlimab, in almost 500 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology. They found that the addition of dostarlimab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved PFS. Unpublished data presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting in March also demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.6 As in NRG-GY018, they found a substantial benefit again in the dMMR population.
The results of these three landmark trials demonstrate the increasing role for immunotherapy in endometrial cancer, especially at the time of initial treatment, and how biomarkers can help direct treatment options.
Takeaway
Use of PD-1 inhibitors improves clinical outcomes in both the upfront and recurrent treatment settings. The magnitude of benefit of treatment with PD-1 inhibitors is greater in patients with dMMR tumors.
Anti-HER2 therapies
HER2 is a cell surface protein that can become overexpressed and promote tumorigenesis. It is used as a prognostic biomarker and a therapeutic target in breast, stomach, and colon cancer, but it has also been identified at high rates (20%-30%) in the most aggressive histologic subtypes in endometrial cancer (serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma). Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against HER2, most commonly used in HER2-positive breast cancer. In 2018, a phase 2 trial demonstrated that trastuzumab combined with standard chemotherapy improved PFS in serous endometrial cancers that overexpress HER2.7 These results were important and promising given both the poor prognosis associated with the aggressive serous histology and the relative lack of effective therapies at the time of recurrence.
Recently, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have come to the forefront of cancer-directed therapies. ADCs deliver chemotherapy agents directly to cancer cells via a monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific target on the cancer cells. Trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) is an ADC consisting of an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a cleavable linker. T-DXd was evaluated in the tumor-agnostic phase 2 DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial,8 which included endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer cohorts, in addition to four other nongynecologic malignancies. In this study, 40 patients with advanced or recurrent malignancies overexpressing HER2 in each cohort were treated with T-DXd.
The results within the endometrial cancer cohort were particularly promising. The overall response rate in endometrial cancer was an astounding 57.5% with a median PFS of over 11 months. Even higher response rates were seen in endometrial cancer patients whose tumors demonstrated higher rates of HER2 overexpression. These results are unprecedented in a cohort in which most patients had seen at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Ocular and pulmonary toxicities are of particular interest with use of ADCs, but they were mostly low grade and manageable in this study.
Takeaway
Anti-HER2 therapies, including antibody-drug conjugates, are effective in treating patients with some of the highest-risk endometrial cancers when they overexpress this protein.
Dr. Haag is a gynecologic oncology fellow in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Siegel R et al. CA Cancer J. 2024;74(1):12-49.
2. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1-10.
3. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):437-48.
4. Eskander RN et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2159-70.
5. Mirza MR et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2145-58.
6. Powell MA et al, editors. Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, 2024; San Diego, CA.
7. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2044-51.
8. Meric-Bernstam F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(1):47-58.
While rates of most other cancers have declined or plateaued, the incidence and mortality rate of endometrial cancer continue to rise.1 The landscape of endometrial cancer treatment has evolved quickly over the past 2-3 years. While surgery and radiation therapy remain the mainstay of treatment for early-stage disease, the development of multiple targeted therapeutics has led to additional treatment options in advanced-stage disease and more aggressive tumor types, which are both associated with a poorer prognosis.
In this update, we highlight the recent advances in these targeted therapies in endometrial cancer. We review the landmark NRG-GY018 and RUBY trials, which demonstrated that checkpoint inhibitors improve outcomes in women with advanced endometrial cancer. We discuss an immunotherapy and antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination useful in certain tumors lacking biomarker expression. We also highlight progress against endometrial cancers that overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), demonstrated in the DESTINY PanTumor-02 trial.
PD-1 inhibitors
Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory receptor expressed on T cells that binds to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1 is expressed on many immune cells but can also be expressed on tumor cells. The interaction of PD-L1 expressed on the surface of endometrial cancer cells with the PD-1 receptor on T cells results in diminished T-cell function, eliminating the immune system’s ability to attack the tumor cells. Treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor prevents this ligand-receptor interaction and restores cancer-fighting function to T cells.
Pembrolizumab, an antibody against the PD-1 receptor, has been used as single-agent treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer since the KEYNOTE-158 study demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumors.2
Additionally, in 2022, Makker et al. published results from a phase 3 trial3 evaluating immunotherapy in the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer, specifically in patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) tumors. They compared the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of VEGF, to physician’s choice next-line chemotherapy in over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. They found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved from a median of 3.8 months with chemotherapy to a median of 6.6 months with pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in the pMMR population. Overall survival was also improved from 12 months to 17.4 months in the pMMR population.
With the clear benefit of immunotherapy in the recurrent setting established, Eskander and colleagues were the first to evaluate treatment with pembrolizumab as upfront treatment in the NRG-GY018 trial,4 comparing standard first-line chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) with or without the addition of pembrolizumab. This randomized, international, phase 3 trial included over 800 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology except carcinosarcoma. Patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel with either pembrolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance pembrolizumab or placebo. The results showed an improvement in PFS with the addition of immunotherapy, with a risk of disease progression or death with pembrolizumab 70% lower than with placebo in patients with dMMR tumors and 46% lower than with placebo in patients with pMMR tumors.
In the similar randomized, international, phase 3 RUBY trial,5 Mirza and colleagues compared standard chemotherapy with or without the addition of another PD-1 inhibitor, dostarlimab, in almost 500 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer of any histology. They found that the addition of dostarlimab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved PFS. Unpublished data presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting in March also demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.6 As in NRG-GY018, they found a substantial benefit again in the dMMR population.
The results of these three landmark trials demonstrate the increasing role for immunotherapy in endometrial cancer, especially at the time of initial treatment, and how biomarkers can help direct treatment options.
Takeaway
Use of PD-1 inhibitors improves clinical outcomes in both the upfront and recurrent treatment settings. The magnitude of benefit of treatment with PD-1 inhibitors is greater in patients with dMMR tumors.
Anti-HER2 therapies
HER2 is a cell surface protein that can become overexpressed and promote tumorigenesis. It is used as a prognostic biomarker and a therapeutic target in breast, stomach, and colon cancer, but it has also been identified at high rates (20%-30%) in the most aggressive histologic subtypes in endometrial cancer (serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma). Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against HER2, most commonly used in HER2-positive breast cancer. In 2018, a phase 2 trial demonstrated that trastuzumab combined with standard chemotherapy improved PFS in serous endometrial cancers that overexpress HER2.7 These results were important and promising given both the poor prognosis associated with the aggressive serous histology and the relative lack of effective therapies at the time of recurrence.
Recently, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have come to the forefront of cancer-directed therapies. ADCs deliver chemotherapy agents directly to cancer cells via a monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific target on the cancer cells. Trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) is an ADC consisting of an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a cleavable linker. T-DXd was evaluated in the tumor-agnostic phase 2 DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial,8 which included endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer cohorts, in addition to four other nongynecologic malignancies. In this study, 40 patients with advanced or recurrent malignancies overexpressing HER2 in each cohort were treated with T-DXd.
The results within the endometrial cancer cohort were particularly promising. The overall response rate in endometrial cancer was an astounding 57.5% with a median PFS of over 11 months. Even higher response rates were seen in endometrial cancer patients whose tumors demonstrated higher rates of HER2 overexpression. These results are unprecedented in a cohort in which most patients had seen at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Ocular and pulmonary toxicities are of particular interest with use of ADCs, but they were mostly low grade and manageable in this study.
Takeaway
Anti-HER2 therapies, including antibody-drug conjugates, are effective in treating patients with some of the highest-risk endometrial cancers when they overexpress this protein.
Dr. Haag is a gynecologic oncology fellow in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill. Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Siegel R et al. CA Cancer J. 2024;74(1):12-49.
2. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1-10.
3. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):437-48.
4. Eskander RN et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2159-70.
5. Mirza MR et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(23):2145-58.
6. Powell MA et al, editors. Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, 2024; San Diego, CA.
7. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2044-51.
8. Meric-Bernstam F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(1):47-58.
FDA Expands Durvalumab Label to Endometrial Cancer
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Repotrectinib Label to All NTRK Gene Fusion+ Solid Tumors
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could British Columbia Eliminate Cervical Cancer by 2031?
To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.
The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.
“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.
Three’s a Charm
The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.
Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.
The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).
Low Incidence, Strained System
The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.
“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.
“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.
Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.
“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.
In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.
Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.
The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.
“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.
Three’s a Charm
The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.
Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.
The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).
Low Incidence, Strained System
The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.
“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.
“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.
Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.
“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.
In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.
Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.
The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.
“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.
Three’s a Charm
The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.
Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.
The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).
Low Incidence, Strained System
The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.
“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.
“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.
Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.
“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.
In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.
Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ovarian Cancer Risk Doubled by Estrogen-Only HRT
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM ASCO 2024
HPV Vaccine Offers Cancer Protection Beyond Cervical Cancer
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM ASCO 2024
Are Children Born Through ART at Higher Risk for Cancer?
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CARACO: Study Shows Safety of Leaving Uninvolved Lymph Nodes in Ovarian Cancer
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024