Gynecologic Cancer

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors Consensus Guidelines, which represent a consensus of nearly 20 professional organizations and patient advocates, are a culmination of almost 10 years of research.¹ With the last version issued in 2012,² these latest guidelines offer the most recent recommendations regarding safely triaging women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

According to the consensus, research has shown that risk-based management allows clinicians to better discriminate women who will likely develop precancer from those who can safely continue with routine screening. As you will hear from guidelines coauthor Dr. Warner Huh, one of the most important differences between these guidelines and the 2012 version is a new emphasis on the principle of “equal management for equal risk.” Essentially, this insures that all women who have the same amount of risk for progression to precancer or cancer are managed the same.

The guidelines were once again published in the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, and the tables they reference are publicly available. Additionally, ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to facilitate the use of the guidelines on smartphones and computers. With the publicly available risk tables, and the ASCCP navigation app, the guidelines will more easily accommodate updates as new information and technology become available.

OBG Management: The latest ASCCP guidelines, published in April, represent a “paradigm shift” from results to risk-based guidelines. Can you explain what this means and why the shift was undertaken?

Warner K. Huh, MD: Yes, the shift occurred because we needed to focus less on algorithms and more on risk. We started promulgating a concept of “equal management for equal risk” back in 2012. What this means is that if we have a method to look up a risk score based on relevant test results and other pieces of information, then all patients with that score should be managed in the same manner. We wanted that to be the underlying principle.

Focusing on risk tables also makes it easier to incorporate any future technologies used for risk estimation without having to rebuild algorithms from scratch. ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to streamline navigation of the guidelines. This app makes them easier for clinicians to use; they simply plug in certain variables from the patient’s history and receive 1 of 5 outputs: treatment, colposcopy, or surveillance at 1, 3, or 5 years.

The only drawbacks, if you view them as such, are that the clinician must plug in all the variables, and then must sit back and trust in what we have done. Clinicians have to trust that the system works and will simplify the clinical decision making.

We spent a lot of time determining what the risk thresholds should be. Some may argue they are arbitrary, but the decisions were data-driven, and carefully, thoughtfully vetted; we deliberated about whether the cut points actually made sense clinically to a practicing clinician base. The clinical action thresholds refer to a specific percentage below which a woman falls into one bucket and above which she falls into another bucket.

The other element that is unique about the guidelines is that instead of looking at the patient’s current screening result in isolation, the user sees it along with the prior one because prior history dictates subsequent risk.

It’s important that clinicians understand why this system is so markedly different from what we have done previously, and why risk-based guidelines make infinitely more sense than algorithmic ones. It’s because: 1) they can be easier to use; 2) they incorporate new data more efficiently and effectively than algorithm-based guidelines; and 3) they can incorporate future technologies seamlessly rather than having to create yet another algorithm.

Continue to: OBG Management : What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?...

OBG Management: What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?

Dr. Huh: Nothing. All of the information needed—the guidelines article and risk tables—are publicly available. However, to make navigation of the guidelines easier, the plan is for the app that I mentioned. I have the app on my phone and am actively beta testing it now. We’re planning on creating a web-based application as well, that will allow users to access the Internet and their electronic health record system so that they can plug in information directly from patient charts. The web-based app will be similar to the web-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium’s Risk Calculator (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm). You will pull it up, plug in the requested information, including the patient’s age; their Pap smear and genotyping results; and their previous screening history.

OBG Management: When will the app be available for users?

Dr. Huh: It will be available for release on June 8.

OBG Management: Were HPV vaccination levels incorporated into the new guidelines?

OBG Management: Have recommendations regarding colposcopy changed?

Dr. Huh: Not really. About 3 years ago, we created basic colposcopy guidelines—the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards—so everything about colposcopy references back to those guidelines. Those colposcopy standards covered terminology and risk-based colposcopy, which actually aligns beautifully with these guidelines.

OBG Management: To narrow in on some changes from the prior guidelines, can colposcopy be deferred in certain patients?

Dr. Huh: Yes. Not everyone who has an abnormal screening test needs to come back for colposcopy.

OBG Management: How has guidance for expedited treatment or treatment without colposcopic biopsy changed?

Dr. Huh: This was heavily debated within not only the treatment group that I co-chaired with Richard Guido, MD, but also within the entire steering committee. The recommendation is that if the patient has an immediate risk of CIN 3 that is >60%, the patient should go straight to treatment without a colposcopic biopsy. The main reason for this is that you do not want to biopsy a patient and then lose them to follow-up.

When a woman has >60% immediate risk of CIN 3, we are fairly certain that colposcopy is not going to change management ultimately, so we recommend that patients receive treatment right away. We have already been doing this for 15 to 20 years, so this is not a new concept. It is just more formally codified here by assigning a percentage to the risk. Those who have between 25% and 60% immediate risk of CIN 3 should receive immediate colposcopy. We realize that not all clinicians have the ability to do this, so if clinicians can’t treat immediately, we recommend they do whatever they can to prevent losing the patient to follow-up.

OBG Management: How should a positive primary HPV screening test be managed?

Dr. Huh: If a woman has a positive primary HPV screening test, genotyping should be performed. If genotyping reveals HPV 16 or 18, then the patient should proceed to colposcopy. If genotyping reveals other forms of HPV, reflex cytology or a Pap smear should follow. ●

The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors Consensus Guidelines, which represent a consensus of nearly 20 professional organizations and patient advocates, are a culmination of almost 10 years of research.¹ With the last version issued in 2012,² these latest guidelines offer the most recent recommendations regarding safely triaging women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

According to the consensus, research has shown that risk-based management allows clinicians to better discriminate women who will likely develop precancer from those who can safely continue with routine screening. As you will hear from guidelines coauthor Dr. Warner Huh, one of the most important differences between these guidelines and the 2012 version is a new emphasis on the principle of “equal management for equal risk.” Essentially, this insures that all women who have the same amount of risk for progression to precancer or cancer are managed the same.

The guidelines were once again published in the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, and the tables they reference are publicly available. Additionally, ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to facilitate the use of the guidelines on smartphones and computers. With the publicly available risk tables, and the ASCCP navigation app, the guidelines will more easily accommodate updates as new information and technology become available.

OBG Management: The latest ASCCP guidelines, published in April, represent a “paradigm shift” from results to risk-based guidelines. Can you explain what this means and why the shift was undertaken?

Warner K. Huh, MD: Yes, the shift occurred because we needed to focus less on algorithms and more on risk. We started promulgating a concept of “equal management for equal risk” back in 2012. What this means is that if we have a method to look up a risk score based on relevant test results and other pieces of information, then all patients with that score should be managed in the same manner. We wanted that to be the underlying principle.

Focusing on risk tables also makes it easier to incorporate any future technologies used for risk estimation without having to rebuild algorithms from scratch. ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to streamline navigation of the guidelines. This app makes them easier for clinicians to use; they simply plug in certain variables from the patient’s history and receive 1 of 5 outputs: treatment, colposcopy, or surveillance at 1, 3, or 5 years.

The only drawbacks, if you view them as such, are that the clinician must plug in all the variables, and then must sit back and trust in what we have done. Clinicians have to trust that the system works and will simplify the clinical decision making.

We spent a lot of time determining what the risk thresholds should be. Some may argue they are arbitrary, but the decisions were data-driven, and carefully, thoughtfully vetted; we deliberated about whether the cut points actually made sense clinically to a practicing clinician base. The clinical action thresholds refer to a specific percentage below which a woman falls into one bucket and above which she falls into another bucket.

The other element that is unique about the guidelines is that instead of looking at the patient’s current screening result in isolation, the user sees it along with the prior one because prior history dictates subsequent risk.

It’s important that clinicians understand why this system is so markedly different from what we have done previously, and why risk-based guidelines make infinitely more sense than algorithmic ones. It’s because: 1) they can be easier to use; 2) they incorporate new data more efficiently and effectively than algorithm-based guidelines; and 3) they can incorporate future technologies seamlessly rather than having to create yet another algorithm.

Continue to: OBG Management : What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?...

OBG Management: What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?

Dr. Huh: Nothing. All of the information needed—the guidelines article and risk tables—are publicly available. However, to make navigation of the guidelines easier, the plan is for the app that I mentioned. I have the app on my phone and am actively beta testing it now. We’re planning on creating a web-based application as well, that will allow users to access the Internet and their electronic health record system so that they can plug in information directly from patient charts. The web-based app will be similar to the web-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium’s Risk Calculator (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm). You will pull it up, plug in the requested information, including the patient’s age; their Pap smear and genotyping results; and their previous screening history.

OBG Management: When will the app be available for users?

Dr. Huh: It will be available for release on June 8.

OBG Management: Were HPV vaccination levels incorporated into the new guidelines?

OBG Management: Have recommendations regarding colposcopy changed?

Dr. Huh: Not really. About 3 years ago, we created basic colposcopy guidelines—the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards—so everything about colposcopy references back to those guidelines. Those colposcopy standards covered terminology and risk-based colposcopy, which actually aligns beautifully with these guidelines.

OBG Management: To narrow in on some changes from the prior guidelines, can colposcopy be deferred in certain patients?

Dr. Huh: Yes. Not everyone who has an abnormal screening test needs to come back for colposcopy.

OBG Management: How has guidance for expedited treatment or treatment without colposcopic biopsy changed?

Dr. Huh: This was heavily debated within not only the treatment group that I co-chaired with Richard Guido, MD, but also within the entire steering committee. The recommendation is that if the patient has an immediate risk of CIN 3 that is >60%, the patient should go straight to treatment without a colposcopic biopsy. The main reason for this is that you do not want to biopsy a patient and then lose them to follow-up.

When a woman has >60% immediate risk of CIN 3, we are fairly certain that colposcopy is not going to change management ultimately, so we recommend that patients receive treatment right away. We have already been doing this for 15 to 20 years, so this is not a new concept. It is just more formally codified here by assigning a percentage to the risk. Those who have between 25% and 60% immediate risk of CIN 3 should receive immediate colposcopy. We realize that not all clinicians have the ability to do this, so if clinicians can’t treat immediately, we recommend they do whatever they can to prevent losing the patient to follow-up.

OBG Management: How should a positive primary HPV screening test be managed?

Dr. Huh: If a woman has a positive primary HPV screening test, genotyping should be performed. If genotyping reveals HPV 16 or 18, then the patient should proceed to colposcopy. If genotyping reveals other forms of HPV, reflex cytology or a Pap smear should follow. ●

The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors Consensus Guidelines, which represent a consensus of nearly 20 professional organizations and patient advocates, are a culmination of almost 10 years of research.¹ With the last version issued in 2012,² these latest guidelines offer the most recent recommendations regarding safely triaging women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

According to the consensus, research has shown that risk-based management allows clinicians to better discriminate women who will likely develop precancer from those who can safely continue with routine screening. As you will hear from guidelines coauthor Dr. Warner Huh, one of the most important differences between these guidelines and the 2012 version is a new emphasis on the principle of “equal management for equal risk.” Essentially, this insures that all women who have the same amount of risk for progression to precancer or cancer are managed the same.

The guidelines were once again published in the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, and the tables they reference are publicly available. Additionally, ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to facilitate the use of the guidelines on smartphones and computers. With the publicly available risk tables, and the ASCCP navigation app, the guidelines will more easily accommodate updates as new information and technology become available.

OBG Management: The latest ASCCP guidelines, published in April, represent a “paradigm shift” from results to risk-based guidelines. Can you explain what this means and why the shift was undertaken?

Warner K. Huh, MD: Yes, the shift occurred because we needed to focus less on algorithms and more on risk. We started promulgating a concept of “equal management for equal risk” back in 2012. What this means is that if we have a method to look up a risk score based on relevant test results and other pieces of information, then all patients with that score should be managed in the same manner. We wanted that to be the underlying principle.

Focusing on risk tables also makes it easier to incorporate any future technologies used for risk estimation without having to rebuild algorithms from scratch. ASCCP is developing a new management guidelines app to streamline navigation of the guidelines. This app makes them easier for clinicians to use; they simply plug in certain variables from the patient’s history and receive 1 of 5 outputs: treatment, colposcopy, or surveillance at 1, 3, or 5 years.

The only drawbacks, if you view them as such, are that the clinician must plug in all the variables, and then must sit back and trust in what we have done. Clinicians have to trust that the system works and will simplify the clinical decision making.

We spent a lot of time determining what the risk thresholds should be. Some may argue they are arbitrary, but the decisions were data-driven, and carefully, thoughtfully vetted; we deliberated about whether the cut points actually made sense clinically to a practicing clinician base. The clinical action thresholds refer to a specific percentage below which a woman falls into one bucket and above which she falls into another bucket.

The other element that is unique about the guidelines is that instead of looking at the patient’s current screening result in isolation, the user sees it along with the prior one because prior history dictates subsequent risk.

It’s important that clinicians understand why this system is so markedly different from what we have done previously, and why risk-based guidelines make infinitely more sense than algorithmic ones. It’s because: 1) they can be easier to use; 2) they incorporate new data more efficiently and effectively than algorithm-based guidelines; and 3) they can incorporate future technologies seamlessly rather than having to create yet another algorithm.

Continue to: OBG Management : What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?...

OBG Management: What do clinicians need in order to execute the guidelines?

Dr. Huh: Nothing. All of the information needed—the guidelines article and risk tables—are publicly available. However, to make navigation of the guidelines easier, the plan is for the app that I mentioned. I have the app on my phone and am actively beta testing it now. We’re planning on creating a web-based application as well, that will allow users to access the Internet and their electronic health record system so that they can plug in information directly from patient charts. The web-based app will be similar to the web-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium’s Risk Calculator (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm). You will pull it up, plug in the requested information, including the patient’s age; their Pap smear and genotyping results; and their previous screening history.

OBG Management: When will the app be available for users?

Dr. Huh: It will be available for release on June 8.

OBG Management: Were HPV vaccination levels incorporated into the new guidelines?

OBG Management: Have recommendations regarding colposcopy changed?

Dr. Huh: Not really. About 3 years ago, we created basic colposcopy guidelines—the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards—so everything about colposcopy references back to those guidelines. Those colposcopy standards covered terminology and risk-based colposcopy, which actually aligns beautifully with these guidelines.

OBG Management: To narrow in on some changes from the prior guidelines, can colposcopy be deferred in certain patients?

Dr. Huh: Yes. Not everyone who has an abnormal screening test needs to come back for colposcopy.

OBG Management: How has guidance for expedited treatment or treatment without colposcopic biopsy changed?

Dr. Huh: This was heavily debated within not only the treatment group that I co-chaired with Richard Guido, MD, but also within the entire steering committee. The recommendation is that if the patient has an immediate risk of CIN 3 that is >60%, the patient should go straight to treatment without a colposcopic biopsy. The main reason for this is that you do not want to biopsy a patient and then lose them to follow-up.

When a woman has >60% immediate risk of CIN 3, we are fairly certain that colposcopy is not going to change management ultimately, so we recommend that patients receive treatment right away. We have already been doing this for 15 to 20 years, so this is not a new concept. It is just more formally codified here by assigning a percentage to the risk. Those who have between 25% and 60% immediate risk of CIN 3 should receive immediate colposcopy. We realize that not all clinicians have the ability to do this, so if clinicians can’t treat immediately, we recommend they do whatever they can to prevent losing the patient to follow-up.

OBG Management: How should a positive primary HPV screening test be managed?

Dr. Huh: If a woman has a positive primary HPV screening test, genotyping should be performed. If genotyping reveals HPV 16 or 18, then the patient should proceed to colposcopy. If genotyping reveals other forms of HPV, reflex cytology or a Pap smear should follow. ●

In a phase 3 trial, combining cytoreductive surgery with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among select patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a platinum-free interval of more than 6 months.

The trial, AGO DESKTOP III/ENGOT ov20, is the first prospective, randomized study showing an overall survival benefit for debulking surgery in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Among 406 patients in first relapse, the median overall survival was 53.7 months for those randomized to cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy and 46 months for patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (P = .02).

“The overall survival benefit was highest and exclusively seen in the cohort with complete resection, indicating the importance of a thorough selection process of both the right patient and the right center,” said investigator Andreas du Bois, MD, of the Kliniken Essen-Mitte (Germany).

The median survival gain for patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months who undergo complete resection is nearly 16 months “and is worth going for,” he added.

Dr. du Bois presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 6000).

In another trial, SOC-1, that was also presented in the virtual program, investigators reported a progression-free survival advantage of 5.5 months for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who underwent debulking surgery, compared with those who did not (Abstract 6001).

 

Different trials, different results

The invited discussant for Dr. du Bois’s presentation was Robert L. Coleman, MD, chief scientific officer of the U.S. Oncology Network in The Woodlands, Tex., who was the principal investigator of the GOG-0213 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-39).

That trial did not show an overall survival advantage to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, among 485 women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Referring to both AGO DESKTOP III and SOC-1, Dr. Coleman noted that, “while only DESKTOP III met its primary endpoint of improving overall survival, both demonstrated a benefit on PFS [progression-free survival].” Both trials also support a triage algorithm for selecting the approximately 75% of patients who are likely to benefit from secondary cytoreductive surgery.

“However, the price paid for being wrong is substantial, with no benefit seen in progression-free survival and possibly a detriment in overall survival. Because of these observations, both [presenters of SOC-1 and AGO DESKTOP III data] recommended that procedures be limited to select women having surgery performed at sites of excellence,” Dr. Coleman said.

Potential explanations for the differential findings of a secondary surgery benefit in DESKTOP III and SOC-1 versus GOG-0213 include the use of a selection algorithm in the former versus investigator selection based on clinical parameters and imaging in the latter.

In addition, “while platinum-based therapy was the rule in all trials, the use of concomitant and maintenance bevacizumab, a regimen found to improve overall survival in GOG-0213, was used in substantially higher numbers of patients in that trial relative to the two current trials,” Dr. Coleman said.

The GOG-0213 trial also demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which was given to 84% of patients in GOG-0213. That trial had a median overall survival for patients who did not undergo surgery of 65.7 months, compared with 46 months in AGO DESKTOP III and 53.9 months in SOC-1, Dr. Coleman said.
 

Third time’s a charm

As its name implies, the AGO DESKTOP III trial is the third in a series. AGO DESKTOP I developed the hypothesis that a positive AGO score – consisting of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0, complete resection during first-line therapy, and ascites less than 500 mL – could be predictive of favorable outcomes with debulking surgery (Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Dec;13[12]:1702-10).

AGO DESKTOP II was a prospective, multicenter trial testing the score in patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Feb;21[2]:289-95). In this trial, 51% of patients had a positive AGO score, and the score was shown to predict, with 95% probability, complete resectability in two-thirds of these patients, Dr. Du Bois said.

In AGO DESKTOP III, 407 patients were prospectively randomized to second-line chemotherapy alone (n = 201) or to cytoreductive surgery (n = 206) followed by the same chemotherapy, with platinum-containing regimens highly recommended.

Patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms. Nearly all patients (99%) in each arm had prior platinum exposure, and 75% had a platinum-free interval of more than 12 months (a median of 21.1 months in the surgery arm versus 18.7 months in the no-surgery arm).
 

Complete resections extend OS

There were 8 patients (4%) in the chemotherapy-only arm and 14 (6.8%) in the surgery arm who were noncompliant with randomization. The complete resection rate was 74.2%.

Following randomization, 88.8% of patients in the surgery arm and 90% in the no-surgery arm received platinum-containing chemotherapy; 22.8% and 23.4%, respectively, received bevacizumab; and 3.9% and 6.0% received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor.

The median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 53.7 months in the surgery arm and 46 months in the no-surgery arm, an absolute difference of 7.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .02).

The median progression-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population after database closure in January 2020, was 18.4 months with surgery and 14 months without (HR, 0.66; P < .001).

A post hoc analysis showed the importance of complete versus partial resection. The median overall survival was 61.9 months in patients with complete resections and 28.8 months for patients with residual tumor after cytoreductive surgery, an absolute difference of nearly 3 years (HR, 0.40; P < .001).

Comparing only those patients with complete resections with patients who did not undergo surgery, the respective median overall survival was 61.9 months and 46 months (HR, 0.57; P < .001).

AGO DESKTOP III was sponsored by the AGO study group in collaboration with other oncology groups, Medac, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. du Bois and Dr. Coleman disclosed relationships with many companies.

SOURCE: du Bois A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6000.

In a phase 3 trial, combining cytoreductive surgery with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among select patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a platinum-free interval of more than 6 months.

The trial, AGO DESKTOP III/ENGOT ov20, is the first prospective, randomized study showing an overall survival benefit for debulking surgery in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Among 406 patients in first relapse, the median overall survival was 53.7 months for those randomized to cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy and 46 months for patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (P = .02).

“The overall survival benefit was highest and exclusively seen in the cohort with complete resection, indicating the importance of a thorough selection process of both the right patient and the right center,” said investigator Andreas du Bois, MD, of the Kliniken Essen-Mitte (Germany).

The median survival gain for patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months who undergo complete resection is nearly 16 months “and is worth going for,” he added.

Dr. du Bois presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 6000).

In another trial, SOC-1, that was also presented in the virtual program, investigators reported a progression-free survival advantage of 5.5 months for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who underwent debulking surgery, compared with those who did not (Abstract 6001).

 

Different trials, different results

The invited discussant for Dr. du Bois’s presentation was Robert L. Coleman, MD, chief scientific officer of the U.S. Oncology Network in The Woodlands, Tex., who was the principal investigator of the GOG-0213 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-39).

That trial did not show an overall survival advantage to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, among 485 women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Referring to both AGO DESKTOP III and SOC-1, Dr. Coleman noted that, “while only DESKTOP III met its primary endpoint of improving overall survival, both demonstrated a benefit on PFS [progression-free survival].” Both trials also support a triage algorithm for selecting the approximately 75% of patients who are likely to benefit from secondary cytoreductive surgery.

“However, the price paid for being wrong is substantial, with no benefit seen in progression-free survival and possibly a detriment in overall survival. Because of these observations, both [presenters of SOC-1 and AGO DESKTOP III data] recommended that procedures be limited to select women having surgery performed at sites of excellence,” Dr. Coleman said.

Potential explanations for the differential findings of a secondary surgery benefit in DESKTOP III and SOC-1 versus GOG-0213 include the use of a selection algorithm in the former versus investigator selection based on clinical parameters and imaging in the latter.

In addition, “while platinum-based therapy was the rule in all trials, the use of concomitant and maintenance bevacizumab, a regimen found to improve overall survival in GOG-0213, was used in substantially higher numbers of patients in that trial relative to the two current trials,” Dr. Coleman said.

The GOG-0213 trial also demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which was given to 84% of patients in GOG-0213. That trial had a median overall survival for patients who did not undergo surgery of 65.7 months, compared with 46 months in AGO DESKTOP III and 53.9 months in SOC-1, Dr. Coleman said.
 

Third time’s a charm

As its name implies, the AGO DESKTOP III trial is the third in a series. AGO DESKTOP I developed the hypothesis that a positive AGO score – consisting of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0, complete resection during first-line therapy, and ascites less than 500 mL – could be predictive of favorable outcomes with debulking surgery (Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Dec;13[12]:1702-10).

AGO DESKTOP II was a prospective, multicenter trial testing the score in patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Feb;21[2]:289-95). In this trial, 51% of patients had a positive AGO score, and the score was shown to predict, with 95% probability, complete resectability in two-thirds of these patients, Dr. Du Bois said.

In AGO DESKTOP III, 407 patients were prospectively randomized to second-line chemotherapy alone (n = 201) or to cytoreductive surgery (n = 206) followed by the same chemotherapy, with platinum-containing regimens highly recommended.

Patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms. Nearly all patients (99%) in each arm had prior platinum exposure, and 75% had a platinum-free interval of more than 12 months (a median of 21.1 months in the surgery arm versus 18.7 months in the no-surgery arm).
 

Complete resections extend OS

There were 8 patients (4%) in the chemotherapy-only arm and 14 (6.8%) in the surgery arm who were noncompliant with randomization. The complete resection rate was 74.2%.

Following randomization, 88.8% of patients in the surgery arm and 90% in the no-surgery arm received platinum-containing chemotherapy; 22.8% and 23.4%, respectively, received bevacizumab; and 3.9% and 6.0% received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor.

The median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 53.7 months in the surgery arm and 46 months in the no-surgery arm, an absolute difference of 7.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .02).

The median progression-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population after database closure in January 2020, was 18.4 months with surgery and 14 months without (HR, 0.66; P < .001).

A post hoc analysis showed the importance of complete versus partial resection. The median overall survival was 61.9 months in patients with complete resections and 28.8 months for patients with residual tumor after cytoreductive surgery, an absolute difference of nearly 3 years (HR, 0.40; P < .001).

Comparing only those patients with complete resections with patients who did not undergo surgery, the respective median overall survival was 61.9 months and 46 months (HR, 0.57; P < .001).

AGO DESKTOP III was sponsored by the AGO study group in collaboration with other oncology groups, Medac, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. du Bois and Dr. Coleman disclosed relationships with many companies.

SOURCE: du Bois A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6000.

In a phase 3 trial, combining cytoreductive surgery with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among select patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a platinum-free interval of more than 6 months.

The trial, AGO DESKTOP III/ENGOT ov20, is the first prospective, randomized study showing an overall survival benefit for debulking surgery in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Among 406 patients in first relapse, the median overall survival was 53.7 months for those randomized to cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy and 46 months for patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (P = .02).

“The overall survival benefit was highest and exclusively seen in the cohort with complete resection, indicating the importance of a thorough selection process of both the right patient and the right center,” said investigator Andreas du Bois, MD, of the Kliniken Essen-Mitte (Germany).

The median survival gain for patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months who undergo complete resection is nearly 16 months “and is worth going for,” he added.

Dr. du Bois presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 6000).

In another trial, SOC-1, that was also presented in the virtual program, investigators reported a progression-free survival advantage of 5.5 months for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who underwent debulking surgery, compared with those who did not (Abstract 6001).

 

Different trials, different results

The invited discussant for Dr. du Bois’s presentation was Robert L. Coleman, MD, chief scientific officer of the U.S. Oncology Network in The Woodlands, Tex., who was the principal investigator of the GOG-0213 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-39).

That trial did not show an overall survival advantage to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, among 485 women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Referring to both AGO DESKTOP III and SOC-1, Dr. Coleman noted that, “while only DESKTOP III met its primary endpoint of improving overall survival, both demonstrated a benefit on PFS [progression-free survival].” Both trials also support a triage algorithm for selecting the approximately 75% of patients who are likely to benefit from secondary cytoreductive surgery.

“However, the price paid for being wrong is substantial, with no benefit seen in progression-free survival and possibly a detriment in overall survival. Because of these observations, both [presenters of SOC-1 and AGO DESKTOP III data] recommended that procedures be limited to select women having surgery performed at sites of excellence,” Dr. Coleman said.

Potential explanations for the differential findings of a secondary surgery benefit in DESKTOP III and SOC-1 versus GOG-0213 include the use of a selection algorithm in the former versus investigator selection based on clinical parameters and imaging in the latter.

In addition, “while platinum-based therapy was the rule in all trials, the use of concomitant and maintenance bevacizumab, a regimen found to improve overall survival in GOG-0213, was used in substantially higher numbers of patients in that trial relative to the two current trials,” Dr. Coleman said.

The GOG-0213 trial also demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which was given to 84% of patients in GOG-0213. That trial had a median overall survival for patients who did not undergo surgery of 65.7 months, compared with 46 months in AGO DESKTOP III and 53.9 months in SOC-1, Dr. Coleman said.
 

Third time’s a charm

As its name implies, the AGO DESKTOP III trial is the third in a series. AGO DESKTOP I developed the hypothesis that a positive AGO score – consisting of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0, complete resection during first-line therapy, and ascites less than 500 mL – could be predictive of favorable outcomes with debulking surgery (Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Dec;13[12]:1702-10).

AGO DESKTOP II was a prospective, multicenter trial testing the score in patients with platinum-free intervals of more than 6 months (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Feb;21[2]:289-95). In this trial, 51% of patients had a positive AGO score, and the score was shown to predict, with 95% probability, complete resectability in two-thirds of these patients, Dr. Du Bois said.

In AGO DESKTOP III, 407 patients were prospectively randomized to second-line chemotherapy alone (n = 201) or to cytoreductive surgery (n = 206) followed by the same chemotherapy, with platinum-containing regimens highly recommended.

Patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms. Nearly all patients (99%) in each arm had prior platinum exposure, and 75% had a platinum-free interval of more than 12 months (a median of 21.1 months in the surgery arm versus 18.7 months in the no-surgery arm).
 

Complete resections extend OS

There were 8 patients (4%) in the chemotherapy-only arm and 14 (6.8%) in the surgery arm who were noncompliant with randomization. The complete resection rate was 74.2%.

Following randomization, 88.8% of patients in the surgery arm and 90% in the no-surgery arm received platinum-containing chemotherapy; 22.8% and 23.4%, respectively, received bevacizumab; and 3.9% and 6.0% received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor.

The median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 53.7 months in the surgery arm and 46 months in the no-surgery arm, an absolute difference of 7.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .02).

The median progression-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population after database closure in January 2020, was 18.4 months with surgery and 14 months without (HR, 0.66; P < .001).

A post hoc analysis showed the importance of complete versus partial resection. The median overall survival was 61.9 months in patients with complete resections and 28.8 months for patients with residual tumor after cytoreductive surgery, an absolute difference of nearly 3 years (HR, 0.40; P < .001).

Comparing only those patients with complete resections with patients who did not undergo surgery, the respective median overall survival was 61.9 months and 46 months (HR, 0.57; P < .001).

AGO DESKTOP III was sponsored by the AGO study group in collaboration with other oncology groups, Medac, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. du Bois and Dr. Coleman disclosed relationships with many companies.

SOURCE: du Bois A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6000.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.

Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?

In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.^1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.

PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.

In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.

Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.

The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.⁴ PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.⁵

When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.

The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.

2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.

3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.

4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.

5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.

The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.

Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?

In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.^1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.

PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.

In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.

Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.

The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.⁴ PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.⁵

When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.

The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.

2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.

3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.

4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.

5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.

The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.

Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?

In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.^1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.

PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.

In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.

Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.

The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.⁴ PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.⁵

When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.

The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.

2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.

3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.

4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.

5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation could see their survival extended by over a year by maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

The new overall survival (OS) data come from the SOLO2 study and were described as “a significant advance” in a cancer “that has a historically poor prognosis” by Richard Schilsky, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The results were highlighted at a presscast prior to being presented during the virtual scientific program of the 2020 ASCO annual meeting (abstract 6002).

The SOLO2 study randomly assigned almost 300 women with relapsed BRCA-related ovarian cancer that was responding to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance therapy with either olaparib or placebo.

Earlier results from this study showed that olaparib was associated with an investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.1 months, versus just 5.5 months with placebo, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

New data from this trial, presented by Andrés Poveda, MD, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, in Valencia, Spain, show that olaparib improved median OS by 12.9 months compared to placebo (51.7 months with olaparib vs. 38.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .054).

At 5 years’ follow-up, 42.1% of women taking olaparib were alive, versus 33.2% taking placebo.

In an ASCO press release, Poveda described the improvement in median OS with olaparib as “impressive” and that it offers a “substantial benefit to our patients.

“This study helps usher in a new era of personalized medicine for women with this difficult-to-treat cancer,” he added.

Poveda told reporters that this study is “the first randomized phase 3 trial to provide overall survival data for maintenance PARP inhibitors.

“The finding that 22% of patient in the olaparib group received the study treatment for more than 5 years is unprecedented in the setting of relapsed ovarian cancer,” he added.

The new OS data were welcomed by Konstantin Zakashansky, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at Mount Sinai West, New York, who was not involved in the study.

“PARP inhibitor trials have revolutionized therapy for ovarian cancer in the front line, as well as in the recurrent setting, [with] all of the recently presented trials showing significant improvement in progression free survival,” he said.

“Overall survival data, however, which is considered the most clinically relevant endpoint in oncology trials and remains the ‘gold standard’ because of its relevance and objectivity, have been limited,” he continued.

Zakashansky recalled that when the earlier PFS data from SOLO2 were presented, “questions were raised regarding the clinical uncertainty of the benefit associated with olaparib maintenance, primarily whether the PFS benefit...would translate to a long-term overall survival benefit.”

For him, the current results “answer that question” and offer the “largest improvement in overall survival of any recurrent ovarian cancer patient trial reported to date.”

Schilsky added that the new data confirm that olaparib “should be the standard maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-related relapsed ovarian cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy.”

The drug is already approved for this indication, but the new data showing a significant survival benefit are “comforting” and “good news,” he said.
 

Adverse events with olaparib

Treatment-emergent adverse events seen in the study were “consistent with the known tolerability profile of olaparib,” Poveda commented.

The most common events of any grade were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and anemia. The most common event of grade ≥3 was anemia.

Adverse events leading to dose interruptions occurred in 50% of patients who received olaparib and 19% of patients who took placebo. Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 28% and 3%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 17% of patients given olaparib and 3% of those in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Poveda reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and receiving expenses from PharmaMar. Many coauthors also report relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation could see their survival extended by over a year by maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

The new overall survival (OS) data come from the SOLO2 study and were described as “a significant advance” in a cancer “that has a historically poor prognosis” by Richard Schilsky, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The results were highlighted at a presscast prior to being presented during the virtual scientific program of the 2020 ASCO annual meeting (abstract 6002).

The SOLO2 study randomly assigned almost 300 women with relapsed BRCA-related ovarian cancer that was responding to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance therapy with either olaparib or placebo.

Earlier results from this study showed that olaparib was associated with an investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.1 months, versus just 5.5 months with placebo, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

New data from this trial, presented by Andrés Poveda, MD, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, in Valencia, Spain, show that olaparib improved median OS by 12.9 months compared to placebo (51.7 months with olaparib vs. 38.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .054).

At 5 years’ follow-up, 42.1% of women taking olaparib were alive, versus 33.2% taking placebo.

In an ASCO press release, Poveda described the improvement in median OS with olaparib as “impressive” and that it offers a “substantial benefit to our patients.

“This study helps usher in a new era of personalized medicine for women with this difficult-to-treat cancer,” he added.

Poveda told reporters that this study is “the first randomized phase 3 trial to provide overall survival data for maintenance PARP inhibitors.

“The finding that 22% of patient in the olaparib group received the study treatment for more than 5 years is unprecedented in the setting of relapsed ovarian cancer,” he added.

The new OS data were welcomed by Konstantin Zakashansky, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at Mount Sinai West, New York, who was not involved in the study.

“PARP inhibitor trials have revolutionized therapy for ovarian cancer in the front line, as well as in the recurrent setting, [with] all of the recently presented trials showing significant improvement in progression free survival,” he said.

“Overall survival data, however, which is considered the most clinically relevant endpoint in oncology trials and remains the ‘gold standard’ because of its relevance and objectivity, have been limited,” he continued.

Zakashansky recalled that when the earlier PFS data from SOLO2 were presented, “questions were raised regarding the clinical uncertainty of the benefit associated with olaparib maintenance, primarily whether the PFS benefit...would translate to a long-term overall survival benefit.”

For him, the current results “answer that question” and offer the “largest improvement in overall survival of any recurrent ovarian cancer patient trial reported to date.”

Schilsky added that the new data confirm that olaparib “should be the standard maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-related relapsed ovarian cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy.”

The drug is already approved for this indication, but the new data showing a significant survival benefit are “comforting” and “good news,” he said.
 

Adverse events with olaparib

Treatment-emergent adverse events seen in the study were “consistent with the known tolerability profile of olaparib,” Poveda commented.

The most common events of any grade were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and anemia. The most common event of grade ≥3 was anemia.

Adverse events leading to dose interruptions occurred in 50% of patients who received olaparib and 19% of patients who took placebo. Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 28% and 3%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 17% of patients given olaparib and 3% of those in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Poveda reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and receiving expenses from PharmaMar. Many coauthors also report relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation could see their survival extended by over a year by maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

The new overall survival (OS) data come from the SOLO2 study and were described as “a significant advance” in a cancer “that has a historically poor prognosis” by Richard Schilsky, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The results were highlighted at a presscast prior to being presented during the virtual scientific program of the 2020 ASCO annual meeting (abstract 6002).

The SOLO2 study randomly assigned almost 300 women with relapsed BRCA-related ovarian cancer that was responding to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance therapy with either olaparib or placebo.

Earlier results from this study showed that olaparib was associated with an investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.1 months, versus just 5.5 months with placebo, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

New data from this trial, presented by Andrés Poveda, MD, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, in Valencia, Spain, show that olaparib improved median OS by 12.9 months compared to placebo (51.7 months with olaparib vs. 38.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .054).

At 5 years’ follow-up, 42.1% of women taking olaparib were alive, versus 33.2% taking placebo.

In an ASCO press release, Poveda described the improvement in median OS with olaparib as “impressive” and that it offers a “substantial benefit to our patients.

“This study helps usher in a new era of personalized medicine for women with this difficult-to-treat cancer,” he added.

Poveda told reporters that this study is “the first randomized phase 3 trial to provide overall survival data for maintenance PARP inhibitors.

“The finding that 22% of patient in the olaparib group received the study treatment for more than 5 years is unprecedented in the setting of relapsed ovarian cancer,” he added.

The new OS data were welcomed by Konstantin Zakashansky, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at Mount Sinai West, New York, who was not involved in the study.

“PARP inhibitor trials have revolutionized therapy for ovarian cancer in the front line, as well as in the recurrent setting, [with] all of the recently presented trials showing significant improvement in progression free survival,” he said.

“Overall survival data, however, which is considered the most clinically relevant endpoint in oncology trials and remains the ‘gold standard’ because of its relevance and objectivity, have been limited,” he continued.

Zakashansky recalled that when the earlier PFS data from SOLO2 were presented, “questions were raised regarding the clinical uncertainty of the benefit associated with olaparib maintenance, primarily whether the PFS benefit...would translate to a long-term overall survival benefit.”

For him, the current results “answer that question” and offer the “largest improvement in overall survival of any recurrent ovarian cancer patient trial reported to date.”

Schilsky added that the new data confirm that olaparib “should be the standard maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-related relapsed ovarian cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy.”

The drug is already approved for this indication, but the new data showing a significant survival benefit are “comforting” and “good news,” he said.
 

Adverse events with olaparib

Treatment-emergent adverse events seen in the study were “consistent with the known tolerability profile of olaparib,” Poveda commented.

The most common events of any grade were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and anemia. The most common event of grade ≥3 was anemia.

Adverse events leading to dose interruptions occurred in 50% of patients who received olaparib and 19% of patients who took placebo. Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 28% and 3%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 17% of patients given olaparib and 3% of those in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Poveda reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and receiving expenses from PharmaMar. Many coauthors also report relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.