Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.

A new study has quantified cancer risk factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including smoking and the use of certain medications.

“As expected, older age was associated with cancer overall, as well as with the most common cancer subtypes,” wrote Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To determine the risk of cancer in people with clinically confirmed incident systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the researchers analyzed data from 1,668 newly diagnosed lupus patients with at least one follow-up visit. All patients were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort from across 33 different centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. A total of 89% (n = 1,480) were women, and 49% (n = 824) were white. The average follow-up period was 9 years.

Of the 1,668 SLE patients, 65 developed some type of cancer. The cancers included 15 breast;, 10 nonmelanoma skin; 7 lung; 6 hematologic, 6 prostate; 5 melanoma; 3 cervical; 3 renal; 2 gastric; 2 head and neck; 2 thyroid; and 1 rectal, sarcoma, thymoma, or uterine. No patient had more than one type, and the mean age of the cancer patients at time of SLE diagnosis was 45.6 (standard deviation, 14.5).

Almost half of the 65 cancers occurred in past or current smokers, including all of the lung cancers, while only 33% of patients without cancers smoked prior to baseline. After univariate analysis, characteristics associated with a higher risk of all cancers included older age at SLE diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.06), White race/ethnicity (aHR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.76-2.37), and smoking (aHR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.73-2.01).

After multivariate analysis, the two characteristics most associated with increased cancer risk were older age at SLE diagnosis and being male. The analyses also confirmed that older age was a risk factor for breast cancer (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), while use of antimalarial drugs was associated with a lower risk of both breast (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and nonmelanoma skin (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.95) cancers. For lung cancer, the highest risk factor was smoking 15 or more cigarettes a day (aHR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.43-30.9); for hematologic cancers, it was being in the top quartile of SLE disease activity (aHR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.13-45.3).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the small number of cancers overall and purposefully not comparing cancer risk in SLE patients with risk in the general population. Although their methods – “physicians recording events at annual visits, confirmed by review of charts” – were recognized as very suitable for the current analysis, they noted that a broader comparison would “potentially be problematic due to differential misclassification error” in cancer registry data.

Two of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. No other potential conflicts were reported.

SOURCE: Bernatsky S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1002/acr.24425.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology “does not generally support” at-home infusions of anticancer therapy because of safety concerns, the organization says in a new policy statement issued July 31.

At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.

The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.

The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.

“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.

“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.

“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.

ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.

One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.

“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.

ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.

Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”

“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.

Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.

Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.

While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.

Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.

“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.

Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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



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

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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