User login
Skip chemoRT in low-risk nasopharyngeal cancer?
and with lower toxicity, compared with a combination of radiation and concurrent chemoradiotherapy, a team of investigators in China suggest.
In a randomized phase 3 trial, there was no significant difference in 3-year failure-free survival (FFS) rates for patients with low-risk stage 2/T3N0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) alone, compared with patients who received a combination of IMRT and concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy.
The trial met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority for IMRT alone with 3-year FFS rates of 90.5% for 169 patients randomized to IMRT alone, and 91.9% for the combined therapy (P for noninferiority < .001).
“The trial results were different from studies on stage 2 NPC conducted in the two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy era that showed concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy provided radio sensitization to enhance locoregional control and overall survival,” investigators Ling-Long Tang, MD and colleagues from Sun Yat-Sen University in Guanzhou, China, reported in JAMA.
“It is possible that IMRT may have maximized locoregional control in many patients with low-risk NPC, which is generally radiosensitive, as supported by more than 90% locoregional relapse-free survival rates in almost all contemporary series for stage 2 disease,” they wrote.
In addition to meeting the primary noninferiority endpoint, there were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints of overall survival, locoregional relapse, or metastasis.
The safety analysis, however, showed that patients in IMRT-alone group had significantly fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events (17% vs. 46%, 95% with a significant 95% confidence interval for the difference), and patients who received only IMRT had significantly better quality-of-life scores during radiotherapy across multiple domains.
“I expect that as a result of this study, most patients with stage 2 [Epstein-Barr virus]–associated NPC will be treated with IMRT alone,” said Lori Wirth, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“This noninferiority study showed that IMRT alone (without concurrent cisplatin) does not lead to greater locoregional relapse or distant metastatic disease. Not only that, but also the study confirmed what we would expect that IMRT alone without concurrent cisplatin is better tolerated with less acute toxicity and improved quality of life compared to chemoRT,” she said in a comment.
“One question that remains is related to long-term toxicity: ‘Will the IMRT-alone patients also experience less lifelong toxicity from treatment?’ If yes, that would be great,” she said.
The open-label, phase 3 trial was conducted at five Chinese hospitals with a total of 341 patients randomly assigned to IMRT alone or with concurrent chemoradiotherapy consisting of IMRT with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for three cycles.
As noted before, the primary endpoint was 3-year FFS, defined as time from randomization to any disease relapse or death. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 10%.
Secondary endpoints included overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for physical function, symptom control, or health-related quality of life.
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovatio, and the Sun Yat-Sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The authors and Dr. Wirth reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
and with lower toxicity, compared with a combination of radiation and concurrent chemoradiotherapy, a team of investigators in China suggest.
In a randomized phase 3 trial, there was no significant difference in 3-year failure-free survival (FFS) rates for patients with low-risk stage 2/T3N0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) alone, compared with patients who received a combination of IMRT and concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy.
The trial met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority for IMRT alone with 3-year FFS rates of 90.5% for 169 patients randomized to IMRT alone, and 91.9% for the combined therapy (P for noninferiority < .001).
“The trial results were different from studies on stage 2 NPC conducted in the two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy era that showed concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy provided radio sensitization to enhance locoregional control and overall survival,” investigators Ling-Long Tang, MD and colleagues from Sun Yat-Sen University in Guanzhou, China, reported in JAMA.
“It is possible that IMRT may have maximized locoregional control in many patients with low-risk NPC, which is generally radiosensitive, as supported by more than 90% locoregional relapse-free survival rates in almost all contemporary series for stage 2 disease,” they wrote.
In addition to meeting the primary noninferiority endpoint, there were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints of overall survival, locoregional relapse, or metastasis.
The safety analysis, however, showed that patients in IMRT-alone group had significantly fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events (17% vs. 46%, 95% with a significant 95% confidence interval for the difference), and patients who received only IMRT had significantly better quality-of-life scores during radiotherapy across multiple domains.
“I expect that as a result of this study, most patients with stage 2 [Epstein-Barr virus]–associated NPC will be treated with IMRT alone,” said Lori Wirth, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“This noninferiority study showed that IMRT alone (without concurrent cisplatin) does not lead to greater locoregional relapse or distant metastatic disease. Not only that, but also the study confirmed what we would expect that IMRT alone without concurrent cisplatin is better tolerated with less acute toxicity and improved quality of life compared to chemoRT,” she said in a comment.
“One question that remains is related to long-term toxicity: ‘Will the IMRT-alone patients also experience less lifelong toxicity from treatment?’ If yes, that would be great,” she said.
The open-label, phase 3 trial was conducted at five Chinese hospitals with a total of 341 patients randomly assigned to IMRT alone or with concurrent chemoradiotherapy consisting of IMRT with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for three cycles.
As noted before, the primary endpoint was 3-year FFS, defined as time from randomization to any disease relapse or death. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 10%.
Secondary endpoints included overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for physical function, symptom control, or health-related quality of life.
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovatio, and the Sun Yat-Sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The authors and Dr. Wirth reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
and with lower toxicity, compared with a combination of radiation and concurrent chemoradiotherapy, a team of investigators in China suggest.
In a randomized phase 3 trial, there was no significant difference in 3-year failure-free survival (FFS) rates for patients with low-risk stage 2/T3N0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) alone, compared with patients who received a combination of IMRT and concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy.
The trial met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority for IMRT alone with 3-year FFS rates of 90.5% for 169 patients randomized to IMRT alone, and 91.9% for the combined therapy (P for noninferiority < .001).
“The trial results were different from studies on stage 2 NPC conducted in the two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy era that showed concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy provided radio sensitization to enhance locoregional control and overall survival,” investigators Ling-Long Tang, MD and colleagues from Sun Yat-Sen University in Guanzhou, China, reported in JAMA.
“It is possible that IMRT may have maximized locoregional control in many patients with low-risk NPC, which is generally radiosensitive, as supported by more than 90% locoregional relapse-free survival rates in almost all contemporary series for stage 2 disease,” they wrote.
In addition to meeting the primary noninferiority endpoint, there were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints of overall survival, locoregional relapse, or metastasis.
The safety analysis, however, showed that patients in IMRT-alone group had significantly fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events (17% vs. 46%, 95% with a significant 95% confidence interval for the difference), and patients who received only IMRT had significantly better quality-of-life scores during radiotherapy across multiple domains.
“I expect that as a result of this study, most patients with stage 2 [Epstein-Barr virus]–associated NPC will be treated with IMRT alone,” said Lori Wirth, MD, a head and neck cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“This noninferiority study showed that IMRT alone (without concurrent cisplatin) does not lead to greater locoregional relapse or distant metastatic disease. Not only that, but also the study confirmed what we would expect that IMRT alone without concurrent cisplatin is better tolerated with less acute toxicity and improved quality of life compared to chemoRT,” she said in a comment.
“One question that remains is related to long-term toxicity: ‘Will the IMRT-alone patients also experience less lifelong toxicity from treatment?’ If yes, that would be great,” she said.
The open-label, phase 3 trial was conducted at five Chinese hospitals with a total of 341 patients randomly assigned to IMRT alone or with concurrent chemoradiotherapy consisting of IMRT with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for three cycles.
As noted before, the primary endpoint was 3-year FFS, defined as time from randomization to any disease relapse or death. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 10%.
Secondary endpoints included overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for physical function, symptom control, or health-related quality of life.
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovatio, and the Sun Yat-Sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The authors and Dr. Wirth reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA
The ‘great dynamism’ of radiation oncology
The field of radiation oncology has rapidly evolved in recent years, thanks in large part to findings from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have helped shift therapeutic standards, a review of the literature shows.
Highlights from this research reveal how high-tech radiotherapy, such as hypofractionation and stereotactic body radiotherapy, has improved care for many patients, how personalized radiotherapy using image-based guidance has helped tailor treatments, and how endpoints that focus on quality of life and patient satisfaction are emerging.
For instance, Charles B. Simone II, MD, FACRO, who was not involved in the current work, pointed to “a proliferation of trials assessing hypofractionation in the curative setting and stereotactic body radiation therapy in the curative and poly- and oligometastatic settings that have allowed for increased patient convenience and dose intensification, respectively.”
Dr. Simone, chief medical officer, New York Proton Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also noted that the first personalized radiotherapy trials using imaging and biological markers have “the profound potential to individualize treatment and improve patient outcomes.”
The review was published in the European Journal of Cancer.
An evolving field
Given the fast-changing landscape for cancer therapeutics and a deluge of research studies, the authors wanted to understand the most notable advances established in recent trials as well as caveats to some approaches and emerging areas to watch.
In the review, Sophie Espenel, MD, from the department of radiation oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, and colleagues identified 1,347 radiotherapy RCTs that were conducted from January 2018 to December 2021. Of these, the authors selected 110 large phase 2 or 3 RCTs that contained data showing practice-changing or emerging concepts.
Overall, the studies showed “great dynamism” in radiation oncology research and covered a wide range of radiotherapy practices, according to Dr. Espenel and coauthors.
A central area of research has focused on radioimmunotherapy, an approach that aims to enhance the antitumor immune response. One RCT in the preoperative setting showed, for instance, that concurrent stereotactic body radiotherapy delivered at 24 Gy over eight fractions, along with the anti–PD-L1 agent durvalumab, increased major pathologic complete response rates almost eightfold in comparison with durvalumab alone for patients with early-stage lung cancer (53.3% vs. 6.7%).
Although promising, not all trials that evaluated a concurrent chemoradiotherapy-immunotherapy strategy showed positive results. One RCT of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, for instance, found that median progression-free survival was not reached when adding the anti–PD-L1 avelumab to chemoradiotherapy. In addition, trials in the metastatic setting have shown conflicting results, the authors note.
Another topic of interest is that of newer radiosensitizers. A trial that evaluated high-risk locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma highlighted the efficacy of xevinapant, a pro-apoptotic agent that inhibits apoptosis proteins. Xevinapant was used for the first time in conjunction with a standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. In this study, locoregional control at 18 months was achieved for 54% of patients who received xevinapant vs. 33% of those who received standard care. The toxicity profiles were similar.
The use of high-tech radiotherapy is gaining ground. It allows patients to receive more targeted treatments at lower doses and in shorter time frames. One trial found, for instance, that a more hypofractionated adjuvant whole breast approach, using 26 Gy in five fractions over a week, is as effective and safe as 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. The researchers found that there was no difference in the incidence of locoregional relapses, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the regimens.
Dr. Simone also noted that advanced treatment modalities, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, and proton therapy, have the potential to improve patient-reported adverse events and clinical outcomes. “I have seen this both in my clinical practice and in several recent publications,” he says.
Personalization of radiotherapy is also an emerging area that may allow for more tailored treatments with improved outcomes. The authors highlighted a study that found that PMSA PET-CT was better than conventional CT for accurately staging prostate cancer. This approach was also less expensive and led to less radiation exposure.
On the basis of this research, “PMSA PET-CT has since become the [standard of care] for prostate cancer staging,” the authors explain.
Dr. Espenel and colleagues note that as patients survive longer, quality of life and patient satisfaction are increasingly becoming endpoints in RCTs. Experts are focusing more attention on sequelae of treatments and advances in technology that can spare critical organs from radiation and reduce overall treatment time.
Shared decision-making is becoming increasingly possible in many cases as well. For example, with some clinical trials that involved different treatment modalities, outcomes were equivalent, but toxicity profiles differed, allowing patients to choose therapeutic options tailored to their preferences.
Overall, these data demonstrate “a great dynamism of radiation oncology research in most primary tumor types,” the researchers write.
The study received no outside financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simone is chair of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Lung Resource Panel and the American Society for Radiation Oncology Veteran Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Blue Ribbon Lung Panel and has received honorarium from Varian Medical Systems.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The field of radiation oncology has rapidly evolved in recent years, thanks in large part to findings from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have helped shift therapeutic standards, a review of the literature shows.
Highlights from this research reveal how high-tech radiotherapy, such as hypofractionation and stereotactic body radiotherapy, has improved care for many patients, how personalized radiotherapy using image-based guidance has helped tailor treatments, and how endpoints that focus on quality of life and patient satisfaction are emerging.
For instance, Charles B. Simone II, MD, FACRO, who was not involved in the current work, pointed to “a proliferation of trials assessing hypofractionation in the curative setting and stereotactic body radiation therapy in the curative and poly- and oligometastatic settings that have allowed for increased patient convenience and dose intensification, respectively.”
Dr. Simone, chief medical officer, New York Proton Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also noted that the first personalized radiotherapy trials using imaging and biological markers have “the profound potential to individualize treatment and improve patient outcomes.”
The review was published in the European Journal of Cancer.
An evolving field
Given the fast-changing landscape for cancer therapeutics and a deluge of research studies, the authors wanted to understand the most notable advances established in recent trials as well as caveats to some approaches and emerging areas to watch.
In the review, Sophie Espenel, MD, from the department of radiation oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, and colleagues identified 1,347 radiotherapy RCTs that were conducted from January 2018 to December 2021. Of these, the authors selected 110 large phase 2 or 3 RCTs that contained data showing practice-changing or emerging concepts.
Overall, the studies showed “great dynamism” in radiation oncology research and covered a wide range of radiotherapy practices, according to Dr. Espenel and coauthors.
A central area of research has focused on radioimmunotherapy, an approach that aims to enhance the antitumor immune response. One RCT in the preoperative setting showed, for instance, that concurrent stereotactic body radiotherapy delivered at 24 Gy over eight fractions, along with the anti–PD-L1 agent durvalumab, increased major pathologic complete response rates almost eightfold in comparison with durvalumab alone for patients with early-stage lung cancer (53.3% vs. 6.7%).
Although promising, not all trials that evaluated a concurrent chemoradiotherapy-immunotherapy strategy showed positive results. One RCT of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, for instance, found that median progression-free survival was not reached when adding the anti–PD-L1 avelumab to chemoradiotherapy. In addition, trials in the metastatic setting have shown conflicting results, the authors note.
Another topic of interest is that of newer radiosensitizers. A trial that evaluated high-risk locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma highlighted the efficacy of xevinapant, a pro-apoptotic agent that inhibits apoptosis proteins. Xevinapant was used for the first time in conjunction with a standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. In this study, locoregional control at 18 months was achieved for 54% of patients who received xevinapant vs. 33% of those who received standard care. The toxicity profiles were similar.
The use of high-tech radiotherapy is gaining ground. It allows patients to receive more targeted treatments at lower doses and in shorter time frames. One trial found, for instance, that a more hypofractionated adjuvant whole breast approach, using 26 Gy in five fractions over a week, is as effective and safe as 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. The researchers found that there was no difference in the incidence of locoregional relapses, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the regimens.
Dr. Simone also noted that advanced treatment modalities, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, and proton therapy, have the potential to improve patient-reported adverse events and clinical outcomes. “I have seen this both in my clinical practice and in several recent publications,” he says.
Personalization of radiotherapy is also an emerging area that may allow for more tailored treatments with improved outcomes. The authors highlighted a study that found that PMSA PET-CT was better than conventional CT for accurately staging prostate cancer. This approach was also less expensive and led to less radiation exposure.
On the basis of this research, “PMSA PET-CT has since become the [standard of care] for prostate cancer staging,” the authors explain.
Dr. Espenel and colleagues note that as patients survive longer, quality of life and patient satisfaction are increasingly becoming endpoints in RCTs. Experts are focusing more attention on sequelae of treatments and advances in technology that can spare critical organs from radiation and reduce overall treatment time.
Shared decision-making is becoming increasingly possible in many cases as well. For example, with some clinical trials that involved different treatment modalities, outcomes were equivalent, but toxicity profiles differed, allowing patients to choose therapeutic options tailored to their preferences.
Overall, these data demonstrate “a great dynamism of radiation oncology research in most primary tumor types,” the researchers write.
The study received no outside financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simone is chair of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Lung Resource Panel and the American Society for Radiation Oncology Veteran Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Blue Ribbon Lung Panel and has received honorarium from Varian Medical Systems.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The field of radiation oncology has rapidly evolved in recent years, thanks in large part to findings from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have helped shift therapeutic standards, a review of the literature shows.
Highlights from this research reveal how high-tech radiotherapy, such as hypofractionation and stereotactic body radiotherapy, has improved care for many patients, how personalized radiotherapy using image-based guidance has helped tailor treatments, and how endpoints that focus on quality of life and patient satisfaction are emerging.
For instance, Charles B. Simone II, MD, FACRO, who was not involved in the current work, pointed to “a proliferation of trials assessing hypofractionation in the curative setting and stereotactic body radiation therapy in the curative and poly- and oligometastatic settings that have allowed for increased patient convenience and dose intensification, respectively.”
Dr. Simone, chief medical officer, New York Proton Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also noted that the first personalized radiotherapy trials using imaging and biological markers have “the profound potential to individualize treatment and improve patient outcomes.”
The review was published in the European Journal of Cancer.
An evolving field
Given the fast-changing landscape for cancer therapeutics and a deluge of research studies, the authors wanted to understand the most notable advances established in recent trials as well as caveats to some approaches and emerging areas to watch.
In the review, Sophie Espenel, MD, from the department of radiation oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, and colleagues identified 1,347 radiotherapy RCTs that were conducted from January 2018 to December 2021. Of these, the authors selected 110 large phase 2 or 3 RCTs that contained data showing practice-changing or emerging concepts.
Overall, the studies showed “great dynamism” in radiation oncology research and covered a wide range of radiotherapy practices, according to Dr. Espenel and coauthors.
A central area of research has focused on radioimmunotherapy, an approach that aims to enhance the antitumor immune response. One RCT in the preoperative setting showed, for instance, that concurrent stereotactic body radiotherapy delivered at 24 Gy over eight fractions, along with the anti–PD-L1 agent durvalumab, increased major pathologic complete response rates almost eightfold in comparison with durvalumab alone for patients with early-stage lung cancer (53.3% vs. 6.7%).
Although promising, not all trials that evaluated a concurrent chemoradiotherapy-immunotherapy strategy showed positive results. One RCT of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, for instance, found that median progression-free survival was not reached when adding the anti–PD-L1 avelumab to chemoradiotherapy. In addition, trials in the metastatic setting have shown conflicting results, the authors note.
Another topic of interest is that of newer radiosensitizers. A trial that evaluated high-risk locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma highlighted the efficacy of xevinapant, a pro-apoptotic agent that inhibits apoptosis proteins. Xevinapant was used for the first time in conjunction with a standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. In this study, locoregional control at 18 months was achieved for 54% of patients who received xevinapant vs. 33% of those who received standard care. The toxicity profiles were similar.
The use of high-tech radiotherapy is gaining ground. It allows patients to receive more targeted treatments at lower doses and in shorter time frames. One trial found, for instance, that a more hypofractionated adjuvant whole breast approach, using 26 Gy in five fractions over a week, is as effective and safe as 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. The researchers found that there was no difference in the incidence of locoregional relapses, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the regimens.
Dr. Simone also noted that advanced treatment modalities, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, and proton therapy, have the potential to improve patient-reported adverse events and clinical outcomes. “I have seen this both in my clinical practice and in several recent publications,” he says.
Personalization of radiotherapy is also an emerging area that may allow for more tailored treatments with improved outcomes. The authors highlighted a study that found that PMSA PET-CT was better than conventional CT for accurately staging prostate cancer. This approach was also less expensive and led to less radiation exposure.
On the basis of this research, “PMSA PET-CT has since become the [standard of care] for prostate cancer staging,” the authors explain.
Dr. Espenel and colleagues note that as patients survive longer, quality of life and patient satisfaction are increasingly becoming endpoints in RCTs. Experts are focusing more attention on sequelae of treatments and advances in technology that can spare critical organs from radiation and reduce overall treatment time.
Shared decision-making is becoming increasingly possible in many cases as well. For example, with some clinical trials that involved different treatment modalities, outcomes were equivalent, but toxicity profiles differed, allowing patients to choose therapeutic options tailored to their preferences.
Overall, these data demonstrate “a great dynamism of radiation oncology research in most primary tumor types,” the researchers write.
The study received no outside financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simone is chair of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Lung Resource Panel and the American Society for Radiation Oncology Veteran Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Blue Ribbon Lung Panel and has received honorarium from Varian Medical Systems.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Getting cancer research on track again may require a ‘behemoth’ effort
In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.
Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.
“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.
Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.
“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
Can cancer be cured?
The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.
“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.
But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.
“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”
Closing the loop on data sharing
Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.
“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.
Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.
Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
A shift in funding priorities?
Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.
“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.
But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.
“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
The pandemic stymies cancer research
The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”
But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”
In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.
Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.
“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.
Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.
“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
Can cancer be cured?
The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.
“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.
But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.
“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”
Closing the loop on data sharing
Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.
“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.
Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.
Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
A shift in funding priorities?
Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.
“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.
But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.
“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
The pandemic stymies cancer research
The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”
But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”
In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.
Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.
“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.
Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.
“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
Can cancer be cured?
The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.
“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.
But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.
“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”
Closing the loop on data sharing
Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.
“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.
Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.
Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
A shift in funding priorities?
Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.
“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.
But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.
“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
The pandemic stymies cancer research
The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.
“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”
But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”
ORATOR2 mute on best de-escalation therapy for low-risk HPV+ oropharynx cancers
The question of whether primary transoral surgery or radiation is a better treatment deescalation option for patients with low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is still unanswered, despite the best efforts of investigators in the randomized phase 2 ORATOR2 trial.
, the study found.
The trial, begun in early 2018, was halted in late 2020 because of safety concerns after 2 of 31 patients randomized to surgery died from treatment-related causes.
But the story doesn’t end there, investigators and observers say.
In both trial arms, patients had good swallowing outcomes and other favorable quality-of-life measures at 1 year, and it’s too early to tell whether the transoral surgery (TOS) was associated with an unacceptable risk of grade 5 toxic effects, but patients in both trial arms achieved good swallowing outcomes at 1 year, wrote investigators Daniel A. Palma, MD, from Western University in London, Ontario, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
Nonetheless, “the results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a primary [surgery] approach was associated with an up-front risk of treatment-related mortality, and caution is warranted with this approach,” the investigators wrote.
Hard to interpret
“It’s challenging to do that study in Canada, frankly, and it’s hard to make much of it, with the trial being terminated early,” said Neil D. Gross, MD, a head and neck cancer surgeon-scientist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview.
Dr. Gross and Sewit Teckie, MD, system chief of radiation oncology at NYC Health and Hospitals, cowrote an editorial accompanying the ORATOR2 results that was published in JAMA Oncology.
“There’s a huge difference in the volume of transoral robotic surgery performed in the United States, compared with Canada – it’s night and day, and that’s due to the different kind of healthcare systems that we have,” Dr. Gross said.
As he and Dr. Teckie noted, the combined mortality rate for surgical patients in the multicenter ORATOR2 and the earlier ORATOR trial, which was not limited to patients with HPV-related cancers, was 3.6%.
In contrast, in the ECOG-ACRIN 3311 trial comparing standard radiation with reduced dose radiation following TOS in patients with intermediate-risk HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, there was only one death among 495 patients, for a mortality rate of 0.2%.
“In the United States, mortality after transoral robotic surgery compares favorably with nonsurgical treatment and is lowest at high-volume centers. ORATOR2 also mandated prophylactic tracheostomy, a practice rarely used in contemporary transoral surgery for low-risk HPV-related OPSCC,” the authors wrote.
In defense of surgery
In an interview posted on the JAMA Network website, ORATOR2 co-investigator Anthony C. Nichols, MD, from the department of otolaryngology, head and neck surgery at Western University, London, Ontario, said that despite the findings of ORATOR2, transoral surgery is a good option for patients with low-risk disease and favorable anatomy.
“When you even look at the subset of these early T-stage patients that have anatomy that’s favorable towards transoral surgery, they do better. Their burden of disease is smaller, there’s less extensive neck disease ... so what happens very frequently, including even in the discussion of ECOG-ACRIN 3311, is comparisons to these large cooperative group studies that include T3, T4 tumors that no one on the planet would think about removing transorally,” he said.
“Everyone focuses on the surgical stopping, but what we should also focus on is how outstanding the patients did in the RT arm in both these studies,” he added.
Dr. Nichols also noted that quality-of-life metrics for patients randomized to surgery are comparable with those of patients randomized to radiation and that swallowing outcomes with surgery may be superior.
“In our minds, I think the issue is resolved, and we’re just moving on to the next concept, and the debate will rage on,” he said.
ORATOR2 study methodology
The primary endpoint of the trial was OS, compared with historical controls, with secondary endpoints of PFS, quality of life, and toxicity.
A total of 30 patients were randomized to receive RT, and 31 to receive TOS and neck dissection, with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings.
At a median follow-up of 17 months, there were 3 deaths in the surgery arm, including the 2 previously mentioned patients who died from treatment-related causes at 0.7 and 4.3 months after randomization, and 1 patient who died from myocardial infarction at 8.5 months. As noted before, OS and PFS data were not mature at the time of study termination.
Quality of life and functional outcomes were generally similar between the trial arms, except for worse scores among patients randomized to TOS and neck dissection in subdomains of coughing and weight loss on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer H&N35 scale.
The trial was supported by an Ontario Institute for Cancer Research clinician-scientist operating grant and Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers Fund. Dr. Nichols reported grants from Novartis Canada outside the submitted work. Dr. Gross reported grants and personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, Intuitive Surgical, and DragonFly Therapeutics, as well as advisory board service for PDS Biotechnology, Shattuck Labs, and Sanofi-Genzyme outside the submitted work.
The question of whether primary transoral surgery or radiation is a better treatment deescalation option for patients with low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is still unanswered, despite the best efforts of investigators in the randomized phase 2 ORATOR2 trial.
, the study found.
The trial, begun in early 2018, was halted in late 2020 because of safety concerns after 2 of 31 patients randomized to surgery died from treatment-related causes.
But the story doesn’t end there, investigators and observers say.
In both trial arms, patients had good swallowing outcomes and other favorable quality-of-life measures at 1 year, and it’s too early to tell whether the transoral surgery (TOS) was associated with an unacceptable risk of grade 5 toxic effects, but patients in both trial arms achieved good swallowing outcomes at 1 year, wrote investigators Daniel A. Palma, MD, from Western University in London, Ontario, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
Nonetheless, “the results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a primary [surgery] approach was associated with an up-front risk of treatment-related mortality, and caution is warranted with this approach,” the investigators wrote.
Hard to interpret
“It’s challenging to do that study in Canada, frankly, and it’s hard to make much of it, with the trial being terminated early,” said Neil D. Gross, MD, a head and neck cancer surgeon-scientist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview.
Dr. Gross and Sewit Teckie, MD, system chief of radiation oncology at NYC Health and Hospitals, cowrote an editorial accompanying the ORATOR2 results that was published in JAMA Oncology.
“There’s a huge difference in the volume of transoral robotic surgery performed in the United States, compared with Canada – it’s night and day, and that’s due to the different kind of healthcare systems that we have,” Dr. Gross said.
As he and Dr. Teckie noted, the combined mortality rate for surgical patients in the multicenter ORATOR2 and the earlier ORATOR trial, which was not limited to patients with HPV-related cancers, was 3.6%.
In contrast, in the ECOG-ACRIN 3311 trial comparing standard radiation with reduced dose radiation following TOS in patients with intermediate-risk HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, there was only one death among 495 patients, for a mortality rate of 0.2%.
“In the United States, mortality after transoral robotic surgery compares favorably with nonsurgical treatment and is lowest at high-volume centers. ORATOR2 also mandated prophylactic tracheostomy, a practice rarely used in contemporary transoral surgery for low-risk HPV-related OPSCC,” the authors wrote.
In defense of surgery
In an interview posted on the JAMA Network website, ORATOR2 co-investigator Anthony C. Nichols, MD, from the department of otolaryngology, head and neck surgery at Western University, London, Ontario, said that despite the findings of ORATOR2, transoral surgery is a good option for patients with low-risk disease and favorable anatomy.
“When you even look at the subset of these early T-stage patients that have anatomy that’s favorable towards transoral surgery, they do better. Their burden of disease is smaller, there’s less extensive neck disease ... so what happens very frequently, including even in the discussion of ECOG-ACRIN 3311, is comparisons to these large cooperative group studies that include T3, T4 tumors that no one on the planet would think about removing transorally,” he said.
“Everyone focuses on the surgical stopping, but what we should also focus on is how outstanding the patients did in the RT arm in both these studies,” he added.
Dr. Nichols also noted that quality-of-life metrics for patients randomized to surgery are comparable with those of patients randomized to radiation and that swallowing outcomes with surgery may be superior.
“In our minds, I think the issue is resolved, and we’re just moving on to the next concept, and the debate will rage on,” he said.
ORATOR2 study methodology
The primary endpoint of the trial was OS, compared with historical controls, with secondary endpoints of PFS, quality of life, and toxicity.
A total of 30 patients were randomized to receive RT, and 31 to receive TOS and neck dissection, with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings.
At a median follow-up of 17 months, there were 3 deaths in the surgery arm, including the 2 previously mentioned patients who died from treatment-related causes at 0.7 and 4.3 months after randomization, and 1 patient who died from myocardial infarction at 8.5 months. As noted before, OS and PFS data were not mature at the time of study termination.
Quality of life and functional outcomes were generally similar between the trial arms, except for worse scores among patients randomized to TOS and neck dissection in subdomains of coughing and weight loss on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer H&N35 scale.
The trial was supported by an Ontario Institute for Cancer Research clinician-scientist operating grant and Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers Fund. Dr. Nichols reported grants from Novartis Canada outside the submitted work. Dr. Gross reported grants and personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, Intuitive Surgical, and DragonFly Therapeutics, as well as advisory board service for PDS Biotechnology, Shattuck Labs, and Sanofi-Genzyme outside the submitted work.
The question of whether primary transoral surgery or radiation is a better treatment deescalation option for patients with low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is still unanswered, despite the best efforts of investigators in the randomized phase 2 ORATOR2 trial.
, the study found.
The trial, begun in early 2018, was halted in late 2020 because of safety concerns after 2 of 31 patients randomized to surgery died from treatment-related causes.
But the story doesn’t end there, investigators and observers say.
In both trial arms, patients had good swallowing outcomes and other favorable quality-of-life measures at 1 year, and it’s too early to tell whether the transoral surgery (TOS) was associated with an unacceptable risk of grade 5 toxic effects, but patients in both trial arms achieved good swallowing outcomes at 1 year, wrote investigators Daniel A. Palma, MD, from Western University in London, Ontario, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
Nonetheless, “the results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a primary [surgery] approach was associated with an up-front risk of treatment-related mortality, and caution is warranted with this approach,” the investigators wrote.
Hard to interpret
“It’s challenging to do that study in Canada, frankly, and it’s hard to make much of it, with the trial being terminated early,” said Neil D. Gross, MD, a head and neck cancer surgeon-scientist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview.
Dr. Gross and Sewit Teckie, MD, system chief of radiation oncology at NYC Health and Hospitals, cowrote an editorial accompanying the ORATOR2 results that was published in JAMA Oncology.
“There’s a huge difference in the volume of transoral robotic surgery performed in the United States, compared with Canada – it’s night and day, and that’s due to the different kind of healthcare systems that we have,” Dr. Gross said.
As he and Dr. Teckie noted, the combined mortality rate for surgical patients in the multicenter ORATOR2 and the earlier ORATOR trial, which was not limited to patients with HPV-related cancers, was 3.6%.
In contrast, in the ECOG-ACRIN 3311 trial comparing standard radiation with reduced dose radiation following TOS in patients with intermediate-risk HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, there was only one death among 495 patients, for a mortality rate of 0.2%.
“In the United States, mortality after transoral robotic surgery compares favorably with nonsurgical treatment and is lowest at high-volume centers. ORATOR2 also mandated prophylactic tracheostomy, a practice rarely used in contemporary transoral surgery for low-risk HPV-related OPSCC,” the authors wrote.
In defense of surgery
In an interview posted on the JAMA Network website, ORATOR2 co-investigator Anthony C. Nichols, MD, from the department of otolaryngology, head and neck surgery at Western University, London, Ontario, said that despite the findings of ORATOR2, transoral surgery is a good option for patients with low-risk disease and favorable anatomy.
“When you even look at the subset of these early T-stage patients that have anatomy that’s favorable towards transoral surgery, they do better. Their burden of disease is smaller, there’s less extensive neck disease ... so what happens very frequently, including even in the discussion of ECOG-ACRIN 3311, is comparisons to these large cooperative group studies that include T3, T4 tumors that no one on the planet would think about removing transorally,” he said.
“Everyone focuses on the surgical stopping, but what we should also focus on is how outstanding the patients did in the RT arm in both these studies,” he added.
Dr. Nichols also noted that quality-of-life metrics for patients randomized to surgery are comparable with those of patients randomized to radiation and that swallowing outcomes with surgery may be superior.
“In our minds, I think the issue is resolved, and we’re just moving on to the next concept, and the debate will rage on,” he said.
ORATOR2 study methodology
The primary endpoint of the trial was OS, compared with historical controls, with secondary endpoints of PFS, quality of life, and toxicity.
A total of 30 patients were randomized to receive RT, and 31 to receive TOS and neck dissection, with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings.
At a median follow-up of 17 months, there were 3 deaths in the surgery arm, including the 2 previously mentioned patients who died from treatment-related causes at 0.7 and 4.3 months after randomization, and 1 patient who died from myocardial infarction at 8.5 months. As noted before, OS and PFS data were not mature at the time of study termination.
Quality of life and functional outcomes were generally similar between the trial arms, except for worse scores among patients randomized to TOS and neck dissection in subdomains of coughing and weight loss on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer H&N35 scale.
The trial was supported by an Ontario Institute for Cancer Research clinician-scientist operating grant and Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers Fund. Dr. Nichols reported grants from Novartis Canada outside the submitted work. Dr. Gross reported grants and personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, Intuitive Surgical, and DragonFly Therapeutics, as well as advisory board service for PDS Biotechnology, Shattuck Labs, and Sanofi-Genzyme outside the submitted work.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Taste dysfunction in head and neck cancer due to radiation dose
finds a new study from JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Taste dysfunction can affect up to 90% of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. While the ability to taste usually returns after the treatment concludes, some patients can still feel the lingering effects of radiotherapy on taste function long after the treatment concludes. It can lead to weight loss and dry mouth which can, in turn, negatively affect quality of life.
“Taste dysfunction has profound effects on quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, and the oral cavity dose could be significantly lower with modern radiotherapy techniques,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Miao-Fen Chen, MD, PhD, of Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. “This study provides useful dose constraints of the oral cavity that may be associated with reduced taste dysfunction.”
Degradation of taste is an important quality of life factor for head and neck cancer patients. A 2021 systematic review published in the journal Radiotherapy and Oncology found that acute taste dysfunction affected 96% of patients as measured objectively, and 79% as measured subjectively. While most patients recover an estimated 23-53% of patients experience long-term dysfunction.
In 2019, a study published in the journal Chemical Senses found that 31% of head and neck cancer patients had long-term changes to taste at 27 months after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), with dysfunction associated with glossectomy and oral cavity radiation doses greater than 50 Gy, but the study only used one quality of life subjective measure to evaluate taste function.
In the new JAMA study, researchers reported the results of a longitudinal using the whole-mouth solution method for basic tastes, including salt, sweet, sour, and bitter.
Study methodology
The study included 87 patients (mean age, 58 years; 90% men) who were enrolled between 2017 and 2020 from a single hospital. 45 patients received primary intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 42 received postoperative radiotherapy. 78 patients received volumetric arc therapy, and 9 received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The radiotherapy was directed to minimize the effect on the parotid glands and oral cavity.
Researchers measured taste dysfunction according to detection thresholds based on solutions with different concentrations. After moving the solution around the mouth and spitting it out, patients were asked to identify taste components. Following a water rinse, they tested a solution with another concentration of taste components. A number was assigned based on the concentration level they were able to detect, with nigher numbers indicating greater sensitivity.
Two to four weeks after initiation of radiotherapy, there were drops in taste scores for salt (4.7 to 1.4), sweet (4.2 to 1.8), sour (4.5 to 2.3), and bitter (4.7 to 1.2). 1 week after radiotherapy, those mean scores increased to 2.6, 2.6, 2.9, and 2.3 respectively. Over the following 3 months, mean scores reflected general recovery to near preradiotherapy levels (4.2, 3.9, 4.1, and 4.0, respectively). At 6 months and 1 year, the scores were equivalent to preradiotherapy levels.
Objective taste tests were performed on 81 participants. 33.3% had taste dysfunction 6 months after radiotherapy. 6 months after, 8.9% had taste dysfunction. At 3 months following radiotherapy, taste dysfunction was associated with an oral cavity mean dose of 4,000 cGy or higher (relative risk, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-6.81) or 5,000 cGy or higher (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.12-3.72). At 6 months, taste dysfunction was predicted by glossectomy (RR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.12-28.15) and oral cavity mean dose 5,000 cGy or greater (RR, 7.79; 95% CI, 0.93-64.92).
The researchers quantified the relationship between mean oral cavity dose and probability of developing taste dysfunction at 3 and 6 months. 3 months after radiotherapy, 25 Gy predicted a 15% chance, 38 Gy predicted a 25% chance, and 60 Gy predicted a 50% chance. At 6 months, the numbers were 57, 60, and 64 Gy.
The study was limited by being conducted at a single center and its small sample size, and it recruited patients varied significantly in treatment modality and disease subtype.
finds a new study from JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Taste dysfunction can affect up to 90% of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. While the ability to taste usually returns after the treatment concludes, some patients can still feel the lingering effects of radiotherapy on taste function long after the treatment concludes. It can lead to weight loss and dry mouth which can, in turn, negatively affect quality of life.
“Taste dysfunction has profound effects on quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, and the oral cavity dose could be significantly lower with modern radiotherapy techniques,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Miao-Fen Chen, MD, PhD, of Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. “This study provides useful dose constraints of the oral cavity that may be associated with reduced taste dysfunction.”
Degradation of taste is an important quality of life factor for head and neck cancer patients. A 2021 systematic review published in the journal Radiotherapy and Oncology found that acute taste dysfunction affected 96% of patients as measured objectively, and 79% as measured subjectively. While most patients recover an estimated 23-53% of patients experience long-term dysfunction.
In 2019, a study published in the journal Chemical Senses found that 31% of head and neck cancer patients had long-term changes to taste at 27 months after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), with dysfunction associated with glossectomy and oral cavity radiation doses greater than 50 Gy, but the study only used one quality of life subjective measure to evaluate taste function.
In the new JAMA study, researchers reported the results of a longitudinal using the whole-mouth solution method for basic tastes, including salt, sweet, sour, and bitter.
Study methodology
The study included 87 patients (mean age, 58 years; 90% men) who were enrolled between 2017 and 2020 from a single hospital. 45 patients received primary intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 42 received postoperative radiotherapy. 78 patients received volumetric arc therapy, and 9 received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The radiotherapy was directed to minimize the effect on the parotid glands and oral cavity.
Researchers measured taste dysfunction according to detection thresholds based on solutions with different concentrations. After moving the solution around the mouth and spitting it out, patients were asked to identify taste components. Following a water rinse, they tested a solution with another concentration of taste components. A number was assigned based on the concentration level they were able to detect, with nigher numbers indicating greater sensitivity.
Two to four weeks after initiation of radiotherapy, there were drops in taste scores for salt (4.7 to 1.4), sweet (4.2 to 1.8), sour (4.5 to 2.3), and bitter (4.7 to 1.2). 1 week after radiotherapy, those mean scores increased to 2.6, 2.6, 2.9, and 2.3 respectively. Over the following 3 months, mean scores reflected general recovery to near preradiotherapy levels (4.2, 3.9, 4.1, and 4.0, respectively). At 6 months and 1 year, the scores were equivalent to preradiotherapy levels.
Objective taste tests were performed on 81 participants. 33.3% had taste dysfunction 6 months after radiotherapy. 6 months after, 8.9% had taste dysfunction. At 3 months following radiotherapy, taste dysfunction was associated with an oral cavity mean dose of 4,000 cGy or higher (relative risk, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-6.81) or 5,000 cGy or higher (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.12-3.72). At 6 months, taste dysfunction was predicted by glossectomy (RR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.12-28.15) and oral cavity mean dose 5,000 cGy or greater (RR, 7.79; 95% CI, 0.93-64.92).
The researchers quantified the relationship between mean oral cavity dose and probability of developing taste dysfunction at 3 and 6 months. 3 months after radiotherapy, 25 Gy predicted a 15% chance, 38 Gy predicted a 25% chance, and 60 Gy predicted a 50% chance. At 6 months, the numbers were 57, 60, and 64 Gy.
The study was limited by being conducted at a single center and its small sample size, and it recruited patients varied significantly in treatment modality and disease subtype.
finds a new study from JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
Taste dysfunction can affect up to 90% of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. While the ability to taste usually returns after the treatment concludes, some patients can still feel the lingering effects of radiotherapy on taste function long after the treatment concludes. It can lead to weight loss and dry mouth which can, in turn, negatively affect quality of life.
“Taste dysfunction has profound effects on quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, and the oral cavity dose could be significantly lower with modern radiotherapy techniques,” wrote the researchers, who were led by Miao-Fen Chen, MD, PhD, of Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. “This study provides useful dose constraints of the oral cavity that may be associated with reduced taste dysfunction.”
Degradation of taste is an important quality of life factor for head and neck cancer patients. A 2021 systematic review published in the journal Radiotherapy and Oncology found that acute taste dysfunction affected 96% of patients as measured objectively, and 79% as measured subjectively. While most patients recover an estimated 23-53% of patients experience long-term dysfunction.
In 2019, a study published in the journal Chemical Senses found that 31% of head and neck cancer patients had long-term changes to taste at 27 months after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), with dysfunction associated with glossectomy and oral cavity radiation doses greater than 50 Gy, but the study only used one quality of life subjective measure to evaluate taste function.
In the new JAMA study, researchers reported the results of a longitudinal using the whole-mouth solution method for basic tastes, including salt, sweet, sour, and bitter.
Study methodology
The study included 87 patients (mean age, 58 years; 90% men) who were enrolled between 2017 and 2020 from a single hospital. 45 patients received primary intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 42 received postoperative radiotherapy. 78 patients received volumetric arc therapy, and 9 received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The radiotherapy was directed to minimize the effect on the parotid glands and oral cavity.
Researchers measured taste dysfunction according to detection thresholds based on solutions with different concentrations. After moving the solution around the mouth and spitting it out, patients were asked to identify taste components. Following a water rinse, they tested a solution with another concentration of taste components. A number was assigned based on the concentration level they were able to detect, with nigher numbers indicating greater sensitivity.
Two to four weeks after initiation of radiotherapy, there were drops in taste scores for salt (4.7 to 1.4), sweet (4.2 to 1.8), sour (4.5 to 2.3), and bitter (4.7 to 1.2). 1 week after radiotherapy, those mean scores increased to 2.6, 2.6, 2.9, and 2.3 respectively. Over the following 3 months, mean scores reflected general recovery to near preradiotherapy levels (4.2, 3.9, 4.1, and 4.0, respectively). At 6 months and 1 year, the scores were equivalent to preradiotherapy levels.
Objective taste tests were performed on 81 participants. 33.3% had taste dysfunction 6 months after radiotherapy. 6 months after, 8.9% had taste dysfunction. At 3 months following radiotherapy, taste dysfunction was associated with an oral cavity mean dose of 4,000 cGy or higher (relative risk, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-6.81) or 5,000 cGy or higher (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.12-3.72). At 6 months, taste dysfunction was predicted by glossectomy (RR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.12-28.15) and oral cavity mean dose 5,000 cGy or greater (RR, 7.79; 95% CI, 0.93-64.92).
The researchers quantified the relationship between mean oral cavity dose and probability of developing taste dysfunction at 3 and 6 months. 3 months after radiotherapy, 25 Gy predicted a 15% chance, 38 Gy predicted a 25% chance, and 60 Gy predicted a 50% chance. At 6 months, the numbers were 57, 60, and 64 Gy.
The study was limited by being conducted at a single center and its small sample size, and it recruited patients varied significantly in treatment modality and disease subtype.
FROM JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY–HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
Quality of life benefit exaggerated in some cancer studies
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.
“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.
These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.
The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).
“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”
To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”
In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.
Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”
He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”
Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.
Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Head and neck tumor grade may predict response to immunotherapy
Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.
“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”
Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).
“ said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.
Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.
In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.
Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).
The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.
Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.
“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”
Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).
“ said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.
Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.
In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.
Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).
The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.
Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.
“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”
Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).
“ said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.
Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.
In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.
Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).
The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.
Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY – HEAD & NECK SURGERY
Good chemo vs. bad chemo: When too much is a bad thing
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
FROM ASCO 2022
Evidence still lacking that vitamins prevent CVD, cancer: USPSTF
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Collagen ‘tile’ delivers postsurgical radiation in glioblastoma
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AANS 2022