Gynecologic Cancer

Patients with early onset cancers have an increased prevalence of germline pathogenic variants, suggesting that genetic testing would be worthwhile in this population, according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Investigators analyzed blood samples from 1,201 patients who were aged 18-39 years when diagnosed with a solid tumor malignancy.

In this group, there were 877 patients with early onset cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis for the cancer type.

The remaining 324 patients had young adult cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is less than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis.

The most common early onset cancers were breast, colorectal, kidney, pancreas, and ovarian cancer.

The most common young adult cancers were sarcoma, brain cancer, and testicular cancer, as expected, said investigator Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Stadler and colleagues performed next-generation sequencing of the patient samples using a panel of up to 88 genes previously implicated in cancer predisposition. This revealed a significantly higher prevalence of germline mutations in patients with early onset cancers than in those with young adult cancers – 21% and 13%, respectively (P = .002).

In patients with only high- and moderate-risk cancer susceptibility genes, the prevalence was 15% in the early onset group and 10% in the young adult group (P = .01). “Among the early onset cancer group, pancreas, breast, and kidney cancer patients harbored the highest rates of germline mutations,” Dr. Stadler said, noting that the spectrum of mutated genes differed in early onset and young adult cancer patients.

“In early onset patients, the most commonly mutated genes were BRCA1 and BRCA2 [4.9%], Lynch syndrome genes [2.2%], ATM [1.6%], and CHECK2 [1.7%],” Dr. Stadler said. “On the other hand, in young adults, TP53 mutations [2.2%], and SDHA and SDHB mutations dominated [1.9%], with the majority of mutations occurring in sarcoma patients.”

These findings suggest the prevalence of inherited cancer susceptibility syndromes in young adults with cancer is not uniform.

“We found a very high prevalence of germline mutations in young patients with cancer types that typically present at later ages,” Dr. Stadler said, referring to the early onset patients.

Conversely, the young adult cancer patients had a prevalence and spectrum of mutations more similar to what is seen in pediatric cancer populations, she noted.

The findings are surprising, according to AACR past president Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Mardis said the results show that, in young adults with early onset cancers, “the germline prevalence of these mutations is significantly higher than we had previously thought.”

“Although representing only about 4% of all cancers, young adults with cancer ... face unique challenges,” Dr. Stadler said. “Identifying whether a young patient’s cancer occurred in the setting of an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome is especially important in this patient population.”

Such knowledge “can significantly impact the risk of second primary cancers and the need for increased surveillance measures or even risk-reducing surgeries,” Dr. Stadler explained. She added that it can also have implications for identifying at-risk family members, such as younger siblings or children who should pursue genetic testing and appropriate prevention measures.

“Our results suggest that, among patients with early onset cancer, the increased prevalence of germline mutations supports a role for genetic testing, irrespective of tumor type,” Dr. Stadler said.

This study was partially funded by the Precision, Interception and Prevention Program, the Robert and Katie Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, the Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Core Grant. Dr. Stadler reported that an immediate family member serves as a consultant in ophthalmology for Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, BioMarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Mardis disclosed relationships with Qiagen NV, Pact Pharma LLC, Moderna Inc., and Interpreta LLC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadler Z et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 1122.

Patients with early onset cancers have an increased prevalence of germline pathogenic variants, suggesting that genetic testing would be worthwhile in this population, according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Investigators analyzed blood samples from 1,201 patients who were aged 18-39 years when diagnosed with a solid tumor malignancy.

In this group, there were 877 patients with early onset cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis for the cancer type.

The remaining 324 patients had young adult cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is less than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis.

The most common early onset cancers were breast, colorectal, kidney, pancreas, and ovarian cancer.

The most common young adult cancers were sarcoma, brain cancer, and testicular cancer, as expected, said investigator Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Stadler and colleagues performed next-generation sequencing of the patient samples using a panel of up to 88 genes previously implicated in cancer predisposition. This revealed a significantly higher prevalence of germline mutations in patients with early onset cancers than in those with young adult cancers – 21% and 13%, respectively (P = .002).

In patients with only high- and moderate-risk cancer susceptibility genes, the prevalence was 15% in the early onset group and 10% in the young adult group (P = .01). “Among the early onset cancer group, pancreas, breast, and kidney cancer patients harbored the highest rates of germline mutations,” Dr. Stadler said, noting that the spectrum of mutated genes differed in early onset and young adult cancer patients.

“In early onset patients, the most commonly mutated genes were BRCA1 and BRCA2 [4.9%], Lynch syndrome genes [2.2%], ATM [1.6%], and CHECK2 [1.7%],” Dr. Stadler said. “On the other hand, in young adults, TP53 mutations [2.2%], and SDHA and SDHB mutations dominated [1.9%], with the majority of mutations occurring in sarcoma patients.”

These findings suggest the prevalence of inherited cancer susceptibility syndromes in young adults with cancer is not uniform.

“We found a very high prevalence of germline mutations in young patients with cancer types that typically present at later ages,” Dr. Stadler said, referring to the early onset patients.

Conversely, the young adult cancer patients had a prevalence and spectrum of mutations more similar to what is seen in pediatric cancer populations, she noted.

The findings are surprising, according to AACR past president Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Mardis said the results show that, in young adults with early onset cancers, “the germline prevalence of these mutations is significantly higher than we had previously thought.”

“Although representing only about 4% of all cancers, young adults with cancer ... face unique challenges,” Dr. Stadler said. “Identifying whether a young patient’s cancer occurred in the setting of an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome is especially important in this patient population.”

Such knowledge “can significantly impact the risk of second primary cancers and the need for increased surveillance measures or even risk-reducing surgeries,” Dr. Stadler explained. She added that it can also have implications for identifying at-risk family members, such as younger siblings or children who should pursue genetic testing and appropriate prevention measures.

“Our results suggest that, among patients with early onset cancer, the increased prevalence of germline mutations supports a role for genetic testing, irrespective of tumor type,” Dr. Stadler said.

This study was partially funded by the Precision, Interception and Prevention Program, the Robert and Katie Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, the Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Core Grant. Dr. Stadler reported that an immediate family member serves as a consultant in ophthalmology for Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, BioMarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Mardis disclosed relationships with Qiagen NV, Pact Pharma LLC, Moderna Inc., and Interpreta LLC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadler Z et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 1122.

Patients with early onset cancers have an increased prevalence of germline pathogenic variants, suggesting that genetic testing would be worthwhile in this population, according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Investigators analyzed blood samples from 1,201 patients who were aged 18-39 years when diagnosed with a solid tumor malignancy.

In this group, there were 877 patients with early onset cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis for the cancer type.

The remaining 324 patients had young adult cancers, defined as cancers for which 39 years of age is less than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis.

The most common early onset cancers were breast, colorectal, kidney, pancreas, and ovarian cancer.

The most common young adult cancers were sarcoma, brain cancer, and testicular cancer, as expected, said investigator Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Stadler and colleagues performed next-generation sequencing of the patient samples using a panel of up to 88 genes previously implicated in cancer predisposition. This revealed a significantly higher prevalence of germline mutations in patients with early onset cancers than in those with young adult cancers – 21% and 13%, respectively (P = .002).

In patients with only high- and moderate-risk cancer susceptibility genes, the prevalence was 15% in the early onset group and 10% in the young adult group (P = .01). “Among the early onset cancer group, pancreas, breast, and kidney cancer patients harbored the highest rates of germline mutations,” Dr. Stadler said, noting that the spectrum of mutated genes differed in early onset and young adult cancer patients.

“In early onset patients, the most commonly mutated genes were BRCA1 and BRCA2 [4.9%], Lynch syndrome genes [2.2%], ATM [1.6%], and CHECK2 [1.7%],” Dr. Stadler said. “On the other hand, in young adults, TP53 mutations [2.2%], and SDHA and SDHB mutations dominated [1.9%], with the majority of mutations occurring in sarcoma patients.”

These findings suggest the prevalence of inherited cancer susceptibility syndromes in young adults with cancer is not uniform.

“We found a very high prevalence of germline mutations in young patients with cancer types that typically present at later ages,” Dr. Stadler said, referring to the early onset patients.

Conversely, the young adult cancer patients had a prevalence and spectrum of mutations more similar to what is seen in pediatric cancer populations, she noted.

The findings are surprising, according to AACR past president Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Mardis said the results show that, in young adults with early onset cancers, “the germline prevalence of these mutations is significantly higher than we had previously thought.”

“Although representing only about 4% of all cancers, young adults with cancer ... face unique challenges,” Dr. Stadler said. “Identifying whether a young patient’s cancer occurred in the setting of an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome is especially important in this patient population.”

Such knowledge “can significantly impact the risk of second primary cancers and the need for increased surveillance measures or even risk-reducing surgeries,” Dr. Stadler explained. She added that it can also have implications for identifying at-risk family members, such as younger siblings or children who should pursue genetic testing and appropriate prevention measures.

“Our results suggest that, among patients with early onset cancer, the increased prevalence of germline mutations supports a role for genetic testing, irrespective of tumor type,” Dr. Stadler said.

This study was partially funded by the Precision, Interception and Prevention Program, the Robert and Katie Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, the Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Core Grant. Dr. Stadler reported that an immediate family member serves as a consultant in ophthalmology for Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, BioMarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Mardis disclosed relationships with Qiagen NV, Pact Pharma LLC, Moderna Inc., and Interpreta LLC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stadler Z et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 1122.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

The Food and Administration has approved a new indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab.

Physicians can now prescribe avelumab (Bavencio) as maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Investigators randomly assigned 700 patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic UC to intravenous avelumab and best supportive care or best supportive care alone. All participants had UC that had not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the avelumab arm and 14.3 months in the best supportive care–alone arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.86). This difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

Avelumab also was associated with significantly longer overall survival in the 51% of participants with PD-L1–positive tumors (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.79; P < .001).

Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial allowed the FDA to convert an initial accelerated approval of avelumab to a regular approval.

Fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, urinary tract infection, and rash were the most common adverse events reported in 20% or more of trial participants. In all, 28% of patients experienced serious adverse events, and one patient died from sepsis during the trial.

Recommended avelumab dosing is 800 mg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progresses or toxicity becomes unacceptable.

See the full prescribing information for more details.

The Food and Administration has approved a new indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab.

Physicians can now prescribe avelumab (Bavencio) as maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Investigators randomly assigned 700 patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic UC to intravenous avelumab and best supportive care or best supportive care alone. All participants had UC that had not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the avelumab arm and 14.3 months in the best supportive care–alone arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.86). This difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

Avelumab also was associated with significantly longer overall survival in the 51% of participants with PD-L1–positive tumors (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.79; P < .001).

Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial allowed the FDA to convert an initial accelerated approval of avelumab to a regular approval.

Fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, urinary tract infection, and rash were the most common adverse events reported in 20% or more of trial participants. In all, 28% of patients experienced serious adverse events, and one patient died from sepsis during the trial.

Recommended avelumab dosing is 800 mg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progresses or toxicity becomes unacceptable.

See the full prescribing information for more details.

The Food and Administration has approved a new indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab.

Physicians can now prescribe avelumab (Bavencio) as maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Investigators randomly assigned 700 patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic UC to intravenous avelumab and best supportive care or best supportive care alone. All participants had UC that had not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the avelumab arm and 14.3 months in the best supportive care–alone arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.86). This difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

Avelumab also was associated with significantly longer overall survival in the 51% of participants with PD-L1–positive tumors (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.79; P < .001).

Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial allowed the FDA to convert an initial accelerated approval of avelumab to a regular approval.

Fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, urinary tract infection, and rash were the most common adverse events reported in 20% or more of trial participants. In all, 28% of patients experienced serious adverse events, and one patient died from sepsis during the trial.

Recommended avelumab dosing is 800 mg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progresses or toxicity becomes unacceptable.

See the full prescribing information for more details.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The DESKTOP III trial, whose results were eagerly awaited, compared surgery followed by chemotherapy versus chemotherapy only in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Dr. Maurie Markman, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, reports that the DESKTOP results, initially announced in 2017, continue to show an improvement in progression-free survival in favor of surgery plus chemotherapy. 
 
Dr. Markman next comments on the SOLO-2 study assessing maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, which showed significantly improved overall survival for patients receiving olaparib.
 
Among other olaparib trials, the phase 3 PAOLA-1 study looked at olaparib plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The study explored the efficacy of this combination in treating tumors with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and found that all patients benefited.
 
Finally, Dr. Markman reports on noteworthy abstracts, including studies examining the adequacy of genetic testing and real-world data in management of patients with ovarian cancer.

Maurie Markman, MD

Maurie Markman, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine; President, Medicine & Science, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck, Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech, Inc; Clovis; Tesaro; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP

The DESKTOP III trial, whose results were eagerly awaited, compared surgery followed by chemotherapy versus chemotherapy only in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Dr. Maurie Markman, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, reports that the DESKTOP results, initially announced in 2017, continue to show an improvement in progression-free survival in favor of surgery plus chemotherapy. 
 
Dr. Markman next comments on the SOLO-2 study assessing maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, which showed significantly improved overall survival for patients receiving olaparib.
 
Among other olaparib trials, the phase 3 PAOLA-1 study looked at olaparib plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The study explored the efficacy of this combination in treating tumors with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and found that all patients benefited.
 
Finally, Dr. Markman reports on noteworthy abstracts, including studies examining the adequacy of genetic testing and real-world data in management of patients with ovarian cancer.

Maurie Markman, MD

Maurie Markman, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine; President, Medicine & Science, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck, Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech, Inc; Clovis; Tesaro; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP

The DESKTOP III trial, whose results were eagerly awaited, compared surgery followed by chemotherapy versus chemotherapy only in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Dr. Maurie Markman, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, reports that the DESKTOP results, initially announced in 2017, continue to show an improvement in progression-free survival in favor of surgery plus chemotherapy. 
 
Dr. Markman next comments on the SOLO-2 study assessing maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, which showed significantly improved overall survival for patients receiving olaparib.
 
Among other olaparib trials, the phase 3 PAOLA-1 study looked at olaparib plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The study explored the efficacy of this combination in treating tumors with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and found that all patients benefited.
 
Finally, Dr. Markman reports on noteworthy abstracts, including studies examining the adequacy of genetic testing and real-world data in management of patients with ovarian cancer.

Maurie Markman, MD

Maurie Markman, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine; President, Medicine & Science, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck, Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech, Inc; Clovis; Tesaro; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.