Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

It had only been 3 weeks since I first met this patient. She presented with an advanced case of colon cancer, but instead of treatment, we had to have a serious talk about death and dying and the goals of care. She died soon after our talk.

Within the course of 2 weeks I saw another new patient, but this time with pancreatic cancer that metastasized to the liver. “When can we start treatment?” he asked. Like my female patient with colon cancer, he was diagnosed too late as he was already in an incurable stage. He was shocked to learn that his condition was in stage 4, that achieving remission would be difficult and a cure, not likely. Certainly, standard of care treatments and clinical trials offered him hope, but they were unlikely to change the outcome.

We take a course in this – that is, in giving bad news, but every doctor has his or her own approach. Some are so uncomfortable with the talk, they choose avoidance and adopt the “look like you gotta go approach.” Or, the doctor may schedule another treatment or another test with the intention of avoiding end-of-life discussions. Other doctors opt for straight talk: “I think you should get your affairs in order. You’ve got 3 months to live.” These are extreme behaviors I wouldn’t recommend.

In my practice, I sit with my patients and explain the diagnosis. After discussing all options and the advanced stage and diagnosis, it ultimately comes down to “Win or lose, I will be here to take care of you.” Sometimes there is therapy that may help, but either way, the patient understands that death is a real possibility.

I find that people just want to know if there is hope. A different treatment regimen or a clinical trial may (or may not) extend their life. And while we cannot predict outcomes, we can give them hope. You can’t shut down hope. True for some people the cup is always half empty, but most people want to live and are optimistic no matter how small the chances are.

These conversations are very difficult. I don’t like them, but then I don’t avoid them either. Fortunately, patients don’t usually come to my office for the first visit presenting with advanced disease. In the cases I described above, one patient had been experiencing unexplained weight loss, but didn’t share it with a physician. And, for the patient with pancreatic cancer, other than some discomfort in the last couple of weeks, the disease was not associated with other symptoms. But the absence of symptoms should not in any way rule out a malignant disease. A diagnosis should be based on a complete evaluation of signs and symptoms followed by testing.

We’ve got to be able to take the time to listen to our patients during these encounters. We may not spend as much time as we should because we’re so busy now and we’re slaves to EMRs. It helps if we take more time to probe symptoms a little longer, especially in the primary care setting.

It is possible for a patient with cancer to be asymptomatic up until the later stages of the disease. A study published in ESMO Open in 2020 found that fewer than half of patients with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer have only one or two symptoms at diagnosis regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. In this study only 33% of patients reported having a cough and 25% had chest pain.

A study presented in October at the United European Gastroenterology Week found that of 600 pancreatic cancer cases, 46 of these were not detected by CT or MRI conducted 3-18 months prior to diagnosis. Of the 46 cases, 26% were not picked up by the radiologist and the rest were largely as a result of imaging changes over time. Radiology techniques are good, but they cannot pick up lesions that are too small. And some lesions, particularly in pancreatic cancer, can grow and metastasize rather quickly.

When a patient is diagnosed with advanced disease, it is most often simply because of the nature of the disease. But sometimes patients put off scheduling a doctor visit because of fear of the potential for bad news or fear of the doctor belittling their symptoms. Some tell me they were “just hoping the symptoms would disappear.” Waiting too long to see a doctor is never a good idea because timing is crucial. In many cases, there is a small window of opportunity to treat disease if remission is to be achieved.


Dr. Henry is a practicing clinical oncologist with PennMedicine in Philadelphia where he also serves as Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital.
 

This article was updated 12/7/22.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.

A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.

In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.

Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.

The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.

Though we don’t want to overtreat our patients, the question remains: Will patients do just as well off treatment, with the potential to resume as needed?

One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.

This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.

Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.

We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.

In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.

Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.

How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?

The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.

I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.

We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.

Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?

These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.

In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?

Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that AI provides a useful supplement but is no threat to replace the role of radiation oncologists.

In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.

Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.

He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.

He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.

Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
 

AI in pathology and treatment selection

In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.

That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.

Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.

No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.

Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.

This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”

Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”

Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.

* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every year, around 7,000 people in Germany develop a brain tumor, and around half of those cases involve a glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Glioblastomas are incurable, but advances are being made in both diagnostics and therapy. Scientists from the Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg have discovered a fundamentally new way in which glioblastomas spread within the brain.

This news organization spoke to Wolfgang Wick, MD, medical director of the neurologic clinic at UKHD, about how glioblastomas are treated; the role that vaccinations, recombinant proteins, and parvoviruses play; and what therapeutic approaches might be derived from the discovery of this method by which glioblastomas spread.

Question: Glioblastomas spread through the brain like a fungal network. So how would a glioblastoma currently be treated? The tumor can only be partially removed through surgery.

Answer: Nevertheless, glioblastoma would be operated on. This would have a significant effect. Relieving the strain of the main tumor mass, without generating a new deficit, is prognostically very good for the patient concerned. However, surgery on glioblastoma is never curative.

The reason a cure is not possible is down to the special form and spread of the glioblastoma. Nevertheless, an operation helps. This seems to be because removing the main tumor mass maybe has a positive immunological effect. But it may also be connected to the tumor’s network communication. The surgical intervention stimulates the network by increasing resistance.

If the main tumor mass is decreased through a surgical procedure, this results in an at least temporarily improved starting position for the patient until the mass regenerates. This could also be connected to the fact that tumor communication is not unregulated but is rather in accordance with a certain hierarchy and order, which requires a certain structure and mass.

The other aspect is that support can be requested via this communication. You can imagine that a cell connected to another cell via a conduit receives help from this other cell in the form of organelles by exchanging ions and that, for example, stress or toxicity can be much better balanced out in large networks than in small networks. That means that external attacks, such as a surgical intervention, can be much better balanced by a well-organized network than by isolated cells.
 

Resistance to chemotherapy

Q: How do irradiation and chemotherapy rank in the treatment of glioblastomas?

A: Irradiation is another therapeutic approach. It causes cells to be stuck in the growth phase of the cell cycle. The cells are not killed through radiation, but they are practically halted. And this arrest of the cell cycle is often sufficient to help people with glioblastomas for a very long time. But the same is true for irradiation as for surgery. This deep network of cells cannot be addressed.

Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the radiation dose to the extent that the brain is no longer damaged by it, but this low dose was then not sufficient to exert any control. If you want to control the tumor, the dose must be high and the volume must be correspondingly low, since there is a clear limit.

Every patient is offered alkylating chemotherapy. At the moment, just one substance is used here in the primary therapy: temozolomide. The problem with this is that two-thirds of tumors in all cells exhibit a resistance to this alkylating chemotherapy, which means that the efficacy of this therapy is highly limited in two-thirds of patients.

In the one-third of patients in whom this resistance is not present, the chemotherapy works fairly well. But even then, it is unfortunately only a matter of time until there is a relapse or disease progression. In my practice, this has always been the case, but there are people who have been living with this disease for 20 years now. There seem to be tumor cells that calmly and silently survive this phase of chemotherapy and then restart the cell cycle at some point.

Q: What do you think of alternating electric fields as a therapy option?

A: Therapy with alternating electric fields is currently being used and offered to patients. This means that patients who have survived well through radiochemotherapy should also be offered treatment with alternating electric fields.

However, what happens in this process is not as well understood as with other therapies. It is assumed that the cell cycle, i.e., cell division, is altered by disrupting the mitotic spindle. But you can imagine, and this is now speculation, but quite sound speculation I believe, that alternating electric fields also cause a certain amount of confusion in the previously described networks. But this still needs to be investigated in more detail.

It is not implausible. We know that such alternating electric fields disturb the organization of cell organelles. And we also know that for this communication, we need fairly good order and also organization. This would definitely be a starting point on the way to understanding why this therapy potentially shows a certain effect in some patients.
 

Nerve cell precursors

Q: Scientists from the UKHD and the DKFZ have discovered a new glioblastoma spreading strategy and have learned that the tumor cells imitate the properties and movement patterns of nerve cells. They are labeling the results a “milestone in the field of cancer neuroscience.” Could you explain a bit more?

A: Glioblastoma does not grow on its own as a solid mass, but instead, the entire brain is affected by the disease. The question of how the tumor’s individual cells move the main tumor mass from afar, how they get there, how they continue to be supplied, and what their interaction partners are – an entirely new light has been shed on all of this in our work.

The development of tumor cell mobility has been recognized as a remnant of brain development. The tumor cells have retained properties that the precursor cells for nervous-system development require for an organized nervous system to emerge from just a few cells. This means that the tumor cells copy or eventually retain properties of the nerve-cell precursors that, unlike mature nerve cells, are mobile to a fairly high degree.

Mobility here means that it can advance along a network, despite said network being very densely packed. This also means that certain processes, such as releasing and then continuing to move again, must function and that the communication regarding the original disease must be maintained.

First, we understand what the different glioblastoma cell types do, which molecular properties are associated with which behaviors, and which cell type (namely the swarming cells) is responsible for the invasive tumor growth. In contrast, the network-forming cell type, which only develops from these, is responsible for the resistance.
 

Interrupting communication

Q: Which starting points for new therapies do you see?

A: In terms of new therapies, these movement phenomena are one good starting point. The other starting point – I find this one much more interesting – is that the programming steps that these tumor cells use [are] no longer needed. This is because our mature nervous system no longer requires this program, which was necessary for the mobility of cells in development.

Our central nervous system exhibits little cell movement. This is to do with programs of nervous-system development that are switched off in the mature nervous system. But they are then reactivated or remain active in the tumor cells. This process reveals potential starting points for therapy.

Addressing the movement of cells, that has been investigated for the last 20 years, but it seems to have an extraordinarily high number of side effects, because these movement mechanisms are also important for other, healthy cells in the body. For example, digestive mechanisms and other proliferation mechanisms, on mucous membranes, in the blood system, in the bone marrow, are then affected and no longer function.

There is another possible approach: the more-or-less specific interaction between the nerve cells and the tumor cells also offers starting points for therapies, from our point of view. The key word is epilepsy treatment. We know that people with brain tumors suffer badly, or worse than usual, from epileptic seizures. This was often regarded purely as a pressure problem. There is a disruptive element in the brain, and this causes the electrical activity in the brain to become disorganized. For some people, this can lead to seizures in certain situations.

The communication between tumor cells and nerve cells takes place via transmission substances, e.g., through the neurotransmitter glutamate. Now you can consider whether a “surplus” of communication, such as an excessively strong stimulus, can trigger epileptic seizures.

In this work, we demonstrate that by interrupting this communication, we can also prevent the movement of these cells and the growth, the proliferation, of these cells.

Q: What is the significance of parvoviruses for therapy?

A: The major topic for cancer is immunotherapy. And one option for performing immunotherapies lies with viruses. Parvoviruses are a plausible therapy for proliferating cells.

Parvoviruses are usually administered locally. This means that a surgical cavity is infected with the viruses and the tumor cells that remain after an operation will then hopefully be killed off by these viruses.

This is the first step and the immediate effect of virus therapy. The attempt is made to kill off cells in the same way as with a medication. The advantage of viruses is the high specificity, i.e., only dividing cells will be attacked. In addition, parvoviruses are so small that they can also spread well and circulate through the brain.

The second reason for immunotherapy is that when killing off cells with viruses, antigens are often released that otherwise would not be, depending on the virus. But it’s the case with parvoviruses. They integrate with the virus’s genetic material. When cells rupture, certain proteins are then revealed, hybrids of viruses and the human genome, and these are attractive to the immune system.

There is a whole range of studies on this subject. However, there are currently no randomized studies that directly compare the therapies. But the expectation is that the use of parvoviruses could be a good addition to therapy.

One limitation that should be mentioned is that the use of viruses may be beneficial for some patients, but it will not have an effect in every patient. What is exciting about parvoviruses is that these viruses can be injected via the bloodstream and still achieve a good effect in the brain.
 

Protein APG101

Q: How relevant is the recombinant protein APG101 to therapy?

A: APG101 is a protein that simulates the cell-death receptor CD95 and binds with a stable antibody fragment. By doing so, it blocks the signaling pathway between CD95 ligand and receptor. The interaction between the CD95 ligand and the CD95 receptor activates an intracellular signaling pathway, which in turn stimulates the invasive growth and migration of tumor cells.

APG101 blocks the CD95 ligand and thereby prevents the activation of the CD95 signaling pathway, which leads to a reduction in the invasive cell growth and migration.

Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a system we have used throughout our evolution to kill off the cell components we no longer need. During tumor development, this system is perverted, so to speak. Here, the stimulation of this system does not actually lead to cell death but rather to cell movement (i.e., to cell mobility). And in principle, APG101 blocks this mobility.

To date, I only know of three studies in which the medication has been used for tumors. One study was published 8 years ago. We demonstrated that we can achieve a relatively good effect with APG101 in connection with repeat irradiation, compared with repeat irradiation alone. We consider this effect to most likely be due to this influence on cell mobility.

There is a study on primary therapy: a four-arm study by the Neuro-Oncological Working Group. The results are still not available, however. In addition, a study on primary therapy with APG101 is currently being conducted in China. It is investigating whether the mechanism of action influences mobility. Whether it will be pushed through as therapy remains to be seen.
 

Vaccinations and antigens

Q: Vaccinations are of course a part of immunotherapy. What is their status?

A: We are looking at the IDH1 protein, which is present in mutated form in a group of brain tumors, as a very good target for a vaccine. The reason is that the protein is present in its mutated form in every cell of the tumor but not in healthy cells. That is a prerequisite for immunotherapy.

We started a study with peptides a few years ago. These peptides are injected under the skin on the stomach and leg. They cause an immune response systemically and in the brain tumor. This immune response may cause an inflammatory reaction (we can demonstrate this inflammatory reaction). And in this noncontrolled study, the approach was successful, at least compared to historical controls. There is no randomized study with treatment-naive control patients.

However, we are cautious because we know that peptide, unlike CAR T cells or RNA-based vaccines, for example, only triggers a relatively small immune response in many patients. The scale of the immune response is important, rather than the specificity. The scale is probably not large enough in most patients for a long-term effect to be expected.

But there are exceptions. Patients we vaccinated many years ago still have a very remarkable immune status. But we also have patients in whom an immune status cannot even be seen anymore, after just a short period of time.

Therefore, our aim is to perform the immune strategy with more effective, stronger measures – not more specific, but stronger. Unfortunately, it is often the case with glioblastomas that there is not a single antigen that can be vaccinated against. Instead, a relatively large cocktail is needed, which unfortunately also often varies from patient to patient. The conditions are difficult.

Q: You mentioned that glioblastomas can be classified into subgroups. Does this improve the prognosis?

A: Yes, in certain subgroups the prognosis improves. That is the case with those usually very small groups that are molecularly well defined. I believe that by better understanding the individual groups, we have succeeded in making major progress in those groups. But where there is light, there is also shadow. We know that there are many groups with which we have not achieved a great deal.

Fundamental research leads to a better understanding, and the next step in this is to be able to adapt the therapy. Instead of it being one therapy for everyone, it will become a part of various differing therapies for these quite different groups. We are making a lot of progress with individual groups. But unfortunately, we have not come quite as far as we want with many patients.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel approach in which two products were co-administered achieved a 99% complete response rate in children with relapsed or treatment-resistant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

In this trial, the largest study to date of a CAR T-cell therapy for such patients, the researchers co-administered two CAR T-cell therapies, one targeting CD19 and the other targeting CD22.

The results showed that 192 of 194 patients (99%) achieved a complete remission.

The combined overall 12-month event-free survival was 73.5%.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

These results are better than what has been reported for CAR T cells that are already on the market. These products, which target CD19, have achieved complete remission in 85.5% of cases and a 12-month event-free survival of 52.4% in children with B-ALL.

“We do believe [this approach] will become standard of care,” said study author Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of the departments of oncology, pathology, and global pediatric medicine, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.

He noted that this work builds on the huge success that has already been achieved in this field with CAR T-cell products directed at CD19. The first of these products to reach the market was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis).

“To put this study in context, the first child who received CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL after multiple relapses has recently celebrated her 10-year cancer-free survival milestone, and we hope that our finding will result in many more such milestones,” he said.

These new results are very impressive, said Stephen P. Hunger, MD, an expert commenting for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which highlighted the research in a press release. “They were also able to treat almost 200 patients in a relatively short time.”

Hunger pointed out that dual administration and targeting is not a new idea and is one of the strategies that is currently under investigation. But it is too early to consider this to be the standard of care, he said. “We want to see it replicated in other centers and to see longer follow-up,” said Dr. Hunger, who is Distinguished Chair in Pediatrics and director of the center for childhood cancer research at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We can establish this as a first step down the road, and we will see if others will achieve similar results.”
 

Strategy of dual targeting

Despite the success CAR T-cell therapy in childhood leukemia, the currently available products have limitations, Dr. Pui and colleagues note.

About half of patients treated with CD19 CAR T cells experience relapse within 1 year, owing either to loss of CAR T-cell persistence or to loss of CD19 antigen because of splice variants, acquired genetic mutations, or lineage switch.

With further treatment with CAR T cells directed against CD22, 70%-80% of patients who failed CD19 CAR T will achieve into complete remission. However, most will experience relapse.

Recent efforts in the field have turned to exploring the safety and feasibility of CAR T cells that target both CD19 and CD22. The results were not superior to those of the CD19 CAR T-cell therapy given alone, although sequential treatment has yielded promising response rates, the authors note.

They hypothesized that co-administration of CD19- and CD22-targeted CAR T cells would improve efficacy, as it could forestall the development of drug resistance.
 

Achieved 99% remission

Dr. Pui and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial that included 225 evaluable patients aged 20 years or younger who were being treated at five urban hospitals in and near Shanghai, China. Of this group, 194 had refractory disease or hematologic relapse, and 31 patients had isolated extramedullary relapse.

A safety run-in stage to determine the recommended dose was initially conducted. An interim analysis of the first 30 patients who were treated (27 at the recommended dose) showed that the approach was safe and effective. Additional patients were then enrolled.

The 192 patients (of 194) who achieved complete remission attained negative minimal residual disease status.

At a median follow-up of 11 months, 43 patients experienced relapse (24 with CD191/CD221 relapse, 16 with CD19– /CD221, one with CD19– /CD22– , and two unknown), for a cumulative risk of 22.2%.
 

Transplant and relapse options

In an interview, Dr. Pui noted that various treatment options were available for the children who experienced relapse. “For patients who were in good clinical condition, we will treat them with molecular therapeutics, allogeneic CAR T cells from donor, or even repeated humanized CD19 and/or CD22 CAR T cells with or without CD20 CAR T cells in an attempt to induce a remission for allogeneic transplantation,” he said.

The site-specific 12-month event-free survival rate in the trial was 69.2% for patients who did not receive a transplant, 95% for those children who had an isolated relapse to the testicles, and 68.6% for those who had an isolated central nervous system relapse.

After censoring 78 patients for consolidative transplantation, the 12-month overall survival was 87.7%.

Consolidative transplantation was performed in 24 of the 37 patients with KMT2A-rearranged or ZNF384-rearranged ALL and in 54 patients because of parental request. The reason for this was that patients with these two genetic subtypes of leukemia (KMT2A-rearranged and ZNF384-rearranged), under the pressure of phenotype-specific treatment (such as CAR T cells or blinatumomab) are at risk of lineage switch and development of secondary acute myeloid leukemia, explained Dr. Pui. “That is an even more resistant form of leukemia, and up to 5%-10% of the patients have been reported to develop this complication.

“We performed consolidation transplantation in these patients to avoid the risk of lineage switch but would accept the parental request not to perform allogeneic transplant after they were clearly informed of the risk,” he told this news organization.

He also suggested that this approach of co-administration of two types of CAR T cells would be especially suitable for “patients with extramedullary involvement, because most of them will be spared of local irradiation so that they can preserve their neurocognitive function and fertility and avoid radiation-induced second cancer, such as brain tumor,” he said.
 

Lower toxicity

With regard to toxicity, the majority of patients (n = 98, 88%) developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade ≥3 in 64 (28.4%) patients and fatal in one. Neurotoxicity occurred in 47 (20.9%) patients, was of grade ≥3 in 9 (4.0%) patients, and was fatal in 2 patients who received 12 x 106 and 5.6 x 106 CAR T cells/kg.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 seizure developed in 14.2% of the patients; it was more common in those who had presented with isolated or combined CNS leukemia. Grade 3 or 4 hypotension occurred in 40.9% of the patients. About three-quarters of the patients were treated with tocilizumab (n = 67, 74.2%), and 79 (35.1%) were treated with corticosteroids.

“In general, CD19 and CD22 CAR T cells were less toxic than CD19 CAR T cells, the historical controls, in our experience,” said Dr. Pui. “There were three fatal complications, a rate not excessive considering a large number of patients were treated.”
 

Future studies needed

The researchers note that in this trial, the CD22 CAR T cells did not expand as robustly or persist as long as did the CD19 CAR T cells, and they hope that future studies will elucidate whether enhancing CD22 CAR T-cell persistence and activity would further improve outcomes.

The study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center for Translational Medicine, the Research Programs of Shanghai Science, the Technology Commission Foundation, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the VIVA China Children’s Cancer Foundation, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

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

A novel approach in which two products were co-administered achieved a 99% complete response rate in children with relapsed or treatment-resistant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

In this trial, the largest study to date of a CAR T-cell therapy for such patients, the researchers co-administered two CAR T-cell therapies, one targeting CD19 and the other targeting CD22.

The results showed that 192 of 194 patients (99%) achieved a complete remission.

The combined overall 12-month event-free survival was 73.5%.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

These results are better than what has been reported for CAR T cells that are already on the market. These products, which target CD19, have achieved complete remission in 85.5% of cases and a 12-month event-free survival of 52.4% in children with B-ALL.

“We do believe [this approach] will become standard of care,” said study author Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of the departments of oncology, pathology, and global pediatric medicine, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.

He noted that this work builds on the huge success that has already been achieved in this field with CAR T-cell products directed at CD19. The first of these products to reach the market was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis).

“To put this study in context, the first child who received CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL after multiple relapses has recently celebrated her 10-year cancer-free survival milestone, and we hope that our finding will result in many more such milestones,” he said.

These new results are very impressive, said Stephen P. Hunger, MD, an expert commenting for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which highlighted the research in a press release. “They were also able to treat almost 200 patients in a relatively short time.”

Hunger pointed out that dual administration and targeting is not a new idea and is one of the strategies that is currently under investigation. But it is too early to consider this to be the standard of care, he said. “We want to see it replicated in other centers and to see longer follow-up,” said Dr. Hunger, who is Distinguished Chair in Pediatrics and director of the center for childhood cancer research at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We can establish this as a first step down the road, and we will see if others will achieve similar results.”
 

Strategy of dual targeting

Despite the success CAR T-cell therapy in childhood leukemia, the currently available products have limitations, Dr. Pui and colleagues note.

About half of patients treated with CD19 CAR T cells experience relapse within 1 year, owing either to loss of CAR T-cell persistence or to loss of CD19 antigen because of splice variants, acquired genetic mutations, or lineage switch.

With further treatment with CAR T cells directed against CD22, 70%-80% of patients who failed CD19 CAR T will achieve into complete remission. However, most will experience relapse.

Recent efforts in the field have turned to exploring the safety and feasibility of CAR T cells that target both CD19 and CD22. The results were not superior to those of the CD19 CAR T-cell therapy given alone, although sequential treatment has yielded promising response rates, the authors note.

They hypothesized that co-administration of CD19- and CD22-targeted CAR T cells would improve efficacy, as it could forestall the development of drug resistance.
 

Achieved 99% remission

Dr. Pui and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial that included 225 evaluable patients aged 20 years or younger who were being treated at five urban hospitals in and near Shanghai, China. Of this group, 194 had refractory disease or hematologic relapse, and 31 patients had isolated extramedullary relapse.

A safety run-in stage to determine the recommended dose was initially conducted. An interim analysis of the first 30 patients who were treated (27 at the recommended dose) showed that the approach was safe and effective. Additional patients were then enrolled.

The 192 patients (of 194) who achieved complete remission attained negative minimal residual disease status.

At a median follow-up of 11 months, 43 patients experienced relapse (24 with CD191/CD221 relapse, 16 with CD19– /CD221, one with CD19– /CD22– , and two unknown), for a cumulative risk of 22.2%.
 

Transplant and relapse options

In an interview, Dr. Pui noted that various treatment options were available for the children who experienced relapse. “For patients who were in good clinical condition, we will treat them with molecular therapeutics, allogeneic CAR T cells from donor, or even repeated humanized CD19 and/or CD22 CAR T cells with or without CD20 CAR T cells in an attempt to induce a remission for allogeneic transplantation,” he said.

The site-specific 12-month event-free survival rate in the trial was 69.2% for patients who did not receive a transplant, 95% for those children who had an isolated relapse to the testicles, and 68.6% for those who had an isolated central nervous system relapse.

After censoring 78 patients for consolidative transplantation, the 12-month overall survival was 87.7%.

Consolidative transplantation was performed in 24 of the 37 patients with KMT2A-rearranged or ZNF384-rearranged ALL and in 54 patients because of parental request. The reason for this was that patients with these two genetic subtypes of leukemia (KMT2A-rearranged and ZNF384-rearranged), under the pressure of phenotype-specific treatment (such as CAR T cells or blinatumomab) are at risk of lineage switch and development of secondary acute myeloid leukemia, explained Dr. Pui. “That is an even more resistant form of leukemia, and up to 5%-10% of the patients have been reported to develop this complication.

“We performed consolidation transplantation in these patients to avoid the risk of lineage switch but would accept the parental request not to perform allogeneic transplant after they were clearly informed of the risk,” he told this news organization.

He also suggested that this approach of co-administration of two types of CAR T cells would be especially suitable for “patients with extramedullary involvement, because most of them will be spared of local irradiation so that they can preserve their neurocognitive function and fertility and avoid radiation-induced second cancer, such as brain tumor,” he said.
 

Lower toxicity

With regard to toxicity, the majority of patients (n = 98, 88%) developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade ≥3 in 64 (28.4%) patients and fatal in one. Neurotoxicity occurred in 47 (20.9%) patients, was of grade ≥3 in 9 (4.0%) patients, and was fatal in 2 patients who received 12 x 106 and 5.6 x 106 CAR T cells/kg.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 seizure developed in 14.2% of the patients; it was more common in those who had presented with isolated or combined CNS leukemia. Grade 3 or 4 hypotension occurred in 40.9% of the patients. About three-quarters of the patients were treated with tocilizumab (n = 67, 74.2%), and 79 (35.1%) were treated with corticosteroids.

“In general, CD19 and CD22 CAR T cells were less toxic than CD19 CAR T cells, the historical controls, in our experience,” said Dr. Pui. “There were three fatal complications, a rate not excessive considering a large number of patients were treated.”
 

Future studies needed

The researchers note that in this trial, the CD22 CAR T cells did not expand as robustly or persist as long as did the CD19 CAR T cells, and they hope that future studies will elucidate whether enhancing CD22 CAR T-cell persistence and activity would further improve outcomes.

The study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center for Translational Medicine, the Research Programs of Shanghai Science, the Technology Commission Foundation, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the VIVA China Children’s Cancer Foundation, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

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

A novel approach in which two products were co-administered achieved a 99% complete response rate in children with relapsed or treatment-resistant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

In this trial, the largest study to date of a CAR T-cell therapy for such patients, the researchers co-administered two CAR T-cell therapies, one targeting CD19 and the other targeting CD22.

The results showed that 192 of 194 patients (99%) achieved a complete remission.

The combined overall 12-month event-free survival was 73.5%.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

These results are better than what has been reported for CAR T cells that are already on the market. These products, which target CD19, have achieved complete remission in 85.5% of cases and a 12-month event-free survival of 52.4% in children with B-ALL.

“We do believe [this approach] will become standard of care,” said study author Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of the departments of oncology, pathology, and global pediatric medicine, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.

He noted that this work builds on the huge success that has already been achieved in this field with CAR T-cell products directed at CD19. The first of these products to reach the market was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis).

“To put this study in context, the first child who received CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL after multiple relapses has recently celebrated her 10-year cancer-free survival milestone, and we hope that our finding will result in many more such milestones,” he said.

These new results are very impressive, said Stephen P. Hunger, MD, an expert commenting for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which highlighted the research in a press release. “They were also able to treat almost 200 patients in a relatively short time.”

Hunger pointed out that dual administration and targeting is not a new idea and is one of the strategies that is currently under investigation. But it is too early to consider this to be the standard of care, he said. “We want to see it replicated in other centers and to see longer follow-up,” said Dr. Hunger, who is Distinguished Chair in Pediatrics and director of the center for childhood cancer research at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We can establish this as a first step down the road, and we will see if others will achieve similar results.”
 

Strategy of dual targeting

Despite the success CAR T-cell therapy in childhood leukemia, the currently available products have limitations, Dr. Pui and colleagues note.

About half of patients treated with CD19 CAR T cells experience relapse within 1 year, owing either to loss of CAR T-cell persistence or to loss of CD19 antigen because of splice variants, acquired genetic mutations, or lineage switch.

With further treatment with CAR T cells directed against CD22, 70%-80% of patients who failed CD19 CAR T will achieve into complete remission. However, most will experience relapse.

Recent efforts in the field have turned to exploring the safety and feasibility of CAR T cells that target both CD19 and CD22. The results were not superior to those of the CD19 CAR T-cell therapy given alone, although sequential treatment has yielded promising response rates, the authors note.

They hypothesized that co-administration of CD19- and CD22-targeted CAR T cells would improve efficacy, as it could forestall the development of drug resistance.
 

Achieved 99% remission

Dr. Pui and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial that included 225 evaluable patients aged 20 years or younger who were being treated at five urban hospitals in and near Shanghai, China. Of this group, 194 had refractory disease or hematologic relapse, and 31 patients had isolated extramedullary relapse.

A safety run-in stage to determine the recommended dose was initially conducted. An interim analysis of the first 30 patients who were treated (27 at the recommended dose) showed that the approach was safe and effective. Additional patients were then enrolled.

The 192 patients (of 194) who achieved complete remission attained negative minimal residual disease status.

At a median follow-up of 11 months, 43 patients experienced relapse (24 with CD191/CD221 relapse, 16 with CD19– /CD221, one with CD19– /CD22– , and two unknown), for a cumulative risk of 22.2%.
 

Transplant and relapse options

In an interview, Dr. Pui noted that various treatment options were available for the children who experienced relapse. “For patients who were in good clinical condition, we will treat them with molecular therapeutics, allogeneic CAR T cells from donor, or even repeated humanized CD19 and/or CD22 CAR T cells with or without CD20 CAR T cells in an attempt to induce a remission for allogeneic transplantation,” he said.

The site-specific 12-month event-free survival rate in the trial was 69.2% for patients who did not receive a transplant, 95% for those children who had an isolated relapse to the testicles, and 68.6% for those who had an isolated central nervous system relapse.

After censoring 78 patients for consolidative transplantation, the 12-month overall survival was 87.7%.

Consolidative transplantation was performed in 24 of the 37 patients with KMT2A-rearranged or ZNF384-rearranged ALL and in 54 patients because of parental request. The reason for this was that patients with these two genetic subtypes of leukemia (KMT2A-rearranged and ZNF384-rearranged), under the pressure of phenotype-specific treatment (such as CAR T cells or blinatumomab) are at risk of lineage switch and development of secondary acute myeloid leukemia, explained Dr. Pui. “That is an even more resistant form of leukemia, and up to 5%-10% of the patients have been reported to develop this complication.

“We performed consolidation transplantation in these patients to avoid the risk of lineage switch but would accept the parental request not to perform allogeneic transplant after they were clearly informed of the risk,” he told this news organization.

He also suggested that this approach of co-administration of two types of CAR T cells would be especially suitable for “patients with extramedullary involvement, because most of them will be spared of local irradiation so that they can preserve their neurocognitive function and fertility and avoid radiation-induced second cancer, such as brain tumor,” he said.
 

Lower toxicity

With regard to toxicity, the majority of patients (n = 98, 88%) developed cytokine release syndrome, which was grade ≥3 in 64 (28.4%) patients and fatal in one. Neurotoxicity occurred in 47 (20.9%) patients, was of grade ≥3 in 9 (4.0%) patients, and was fatal in 2 patients who received 12 x 106 and 5.6 x 106 CAR T cells/kg.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 seizure developed in 14.2% of the patients; it was more common in those who had presented with isolated or combined CNS leukemia. Grade 3 or 4 hypotension occurred in 40.9% of the patients. About three-quarters of the patients were treated with tocilizumab (n = 67, 74.2%), and 79 (35.1%) were treated with corticosteroids.

“In general, CD19 and CD22 CAR T cells were less toxic than CD19 CAR T cells, the historical controls, in our experience,” said Dr. Pui. “There were three fatal complications, a rate not excessive considering a large number of patients were treated.”
 

Future studies needed

The researchers note that in this trial, the CD22 CAR T cells did not expand as robustly or persist as long as did the CD19 CAR T cells, and they hope that future studies will elucidate whether enhancing CD22 CAR T-cell persistence and activity would further improve outcomes.

The study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center for Translational Medicine, the Research Programs of Shanghai Science, the Technology Commission Foundation, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the VIVA China Children’s Cancer Foundation, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

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

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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