Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for stage II-IV cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) led to a strong pathological complete response rate, according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.

CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.

“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.

The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.

“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
 

Dramatic results and an attractive option

Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.

After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.

72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.

Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.

Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.

He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”

The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for stage II-IV cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) led to a strong pathological complete response rate, according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.

CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.

“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.

The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.

“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
 

Dramatic results and an attractive option

Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.

After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.

72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.

Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.

Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.

He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”

The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for stage II-IV cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) led to a strong pathological complete response rate, according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.

CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.

“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.

The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.

“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
 

Dramatic results and an attractive option

Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.

After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.

72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.

Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.

Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.

He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”

The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

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

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.