Hodgkin Lymphoma

Photo courtesy of ASH

ATLANTA—Phase 3 trial results suggest one 4-drug combination may be more effective than another as frontline treatment for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

In the ECHELON-1 trial, treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) staved off progression, death, and the need for subsequent therapy more effectively than treatment with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

However, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

These data were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 6) and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The trial was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seattle Genetics, Inc.

“The standard of care in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed over the last several decades, and there remains an unmet need for additional regimens in frontline treatment,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues conducted ECHELON-1. The study enrolled 1334 patients who had stage III or IV HL and had not previously received systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Fifty-eight percent of patients were male, and the median age was 36 (range, 18-83). Sixty-four percent of patients had stage IV disease, 62% had extranodal involvement at diagnosis, and 58% had B symptoms.

The patients were randomized to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

The median follow-up was 24.9 months (range, 0-49.3).

Primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS), which is defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

“Reducing the risk of relapse is an important concern for patients and their physicians,” Dr Connors noted. “In the trial, 33% fewer patients [in the A+AVD arm] required subsequent salvage chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and transplant compared to the patients treated with ABVD.”

According to the independent review facility, the 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

Certain pre-specified subgroups of patients appeared to benefit more with A+AVD than with ABVD, including:

• Males
• Patients treated in North America
• Patients with involvement of more than 1 extranodal site
• Patients with International Prognostic Scores of 4 to 7
• Patients with stage IV disease
• Patients younger than 60.

Secondary endpoints

Secondary endpoints trended in favor of the A+AVD arm, although there were no significant differences between the treatment arms.

The objective response rate at the end of the randomized regimen was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The proportion of patients with a Deauville score ≤2 after the completion of frontline therapy was 85% in the A+AVD arm and 80% in the ABVD arm (P=0.03).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

Safety

“[T]he safety profile [of A+AVD] was generally consistent with that known for the single-agent components of the regimen,” Dr Connors said.

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Common AEs (in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively) included neutropenia (58% and 45%), constipation (42% and 37%), vomiting (33% and 28%), fatigue (both 32%), diarrhea (27% and 18%), pyrexia (27% and 22%), abdominal pain (21% and 10%), and stomatitis (21% and 16%).

Peripheral neuropathy events were observed in 67% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 43% in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy was reported in 11% and 2%, respectively.

Febrile neutropenia occurred in 19% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 8% of those in the ABVD arm. However, prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was able to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In the A+AVD arm, the rate of febrile neutropenia was 11% among patients who received G-CSF and 21% among patients who did not.

Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 2% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 7% of those in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher pulmonary toxicity was reported in 0.76% and 3%, respectively.

There were 9 deaths during treatment in the A+AVD arm. Seven were due to neutropenia or associated complications, and 2 were due to myocardial infarction. One of the patients who died of neutropenia had the condition prior to trial enrollment. The remaining 6 patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis.

In the ABVD arm, there were 13 deaths during treatment. Eleven were due to or associated with pulmonary-related toxicity, 1 was due to cardiopulmonary failure, and 1 death had an unknown cause.

Photo courtesy of ASH

ATLANTA—Phase 3 trial results suggest one 4-drug combination may be more effective than another as frontline treatment for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

In the ECHELON-1 trial, treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) staved off progression, death, and the need for subsequent therapy more effectively than treatment with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

However, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

These data were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 6) and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The trial was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seattle Genetics, Inc.

“The standard of care in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed over the last several decades, and there remains an unmet need for additional regimens in frontline treatment,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues conducted ECHELON-1. The study enrolled 1334 patients who had stage III or IV HL and had not previously received systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Fifty-eight percent of patients were male, and the median age was 36 (range, 18-83). Sixty-four percent of patients had stage IV disease, 62% had extranodal involvement at diagnosis, and 58% had B symptoms.

The patients were randomized to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

The median follow-up was 24.9 months (range, 0-49.3).

Primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS), which is defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

“Reducing the risk of relapse is an important concern for patients and their physicians,” Dr Connors noted. “In the trial, 33% fewer patients [in the A+AVD arm] required subsequent salvage chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and transplant compared to the patients treated with ABVD.”

According to the independent review facility, the 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

Certain pre-specified subgroups of patients appeared to benefit more with A+AVD than with ABVD, including:

• Males
• Patients treated in North America
• Patients with involvement of more than 1 extranodal site
• Patients with International Prognostic Scores of 4 to 7
• Patients with stage IV disease
• Patients younger than 60.

Secondary endpoints

Secondary endpoints trended in favor of the A+AVD arm, although there were no significant differences between the treatment arms.

The objective response rate at the end of the randomized regimen was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The proportion of patients with a Deauville score ≤2 after the completion of frontline therapy was 85% in the A+AVD arm and 80% in the ABVD arm (P=0.03).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

Safety

“[T]he safety profile [of A+AVD] was generally consistent with that known for the single-agent components of the regimen,” Dr Connors said.

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Common AEs (in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively) included neutropenia (58% and 45%), constipation (42% and 37%), vomiting (33% and 28%), fatigue (both 32%), diarrhea (27% and 18%), pyrexia (27% and 22%), abdominal pain (21% and 10%), and stomatitis (21% and 16%).

Peripheral neuropathy events were observed in 67% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 43% in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy was reported in 11% and 2%, respectively.

Febrile neutropenia occurred in 19% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 8% of those in the ABVD arm. However, prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was able to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In the A+AVD arm, the rate of febrile neutropenia was 11% among patients who received G-CSF and 21% among patients who did not.

Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 2% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 7% of those in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher pulmonary toxicity was reported in 0.76% and 3%, respectively.

There were 9 deaths during treatment in the A+AVD arm. Seven were due to neutropenia or associated complications, and 2 were due to myocardial infarction. One of the patients who died of neutropenia had the condition prior to trial enrollment. The remaining 6 patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis.

In the ABVD arm, there were 13 deaths during treatment. Eleven were due to or associated with pulmonary-related toxicity, 1 was due to cardiopulmonary failure, and 1 death had an unknown cause.

Photo courtesy of ASH

ATLANTA—Phase 3 trial results suggest one 4-drug combination may be more effective than another as frontline treatment for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

In the ECHELON-1 trial, treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) staved off progression, death, and the need for subsequent therapy more effectively than treatment with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD).

However, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms when it came to response rates or overall survival.

Neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy were more common with A+AVD, while pulmonary toxicity was more common with ABVD.

These data were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 6) and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The trial was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seattle Genetics, Inc.

“The standard of care in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has not changed over the last several decades, and there remains an unmet need for additional regimens in frontline treatment,” said Joseph M. Connors, MD, of BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues conducted ECHELON-1. The study enrolled 1334 patients who had stage III or IV HL and had not previously received systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Fifty-eight percent of patients were male, and the median age was 36 (range, 18-83). Sixty-four percent of patients had stage IV disease, 62% had extranodal involvement at diagnosis, and 58% had B symptoms.

The patients were randomized to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

The median follow-up was 24.9 months (range, 0-49.3).

Primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS), which is defined as time to progression, death, or evidence of non-complete response after completion of frontline therapy followed by subsequent anticancer therapy.

According to an independent review facility, A+AVD provided a significant improvement in modified PFS compared to ABVD. The hazard ratio was 0.77 (P=0.035), which corresponds to a 23% reduction in the risk of progression, death, or the need for additional anticancer therapy.

“Reducing the risk of relapse is an important concern for patients and their physicians,” Dr Connors noted. “In the trial, 33% fewer patients [in the A+AVD arm] required subsequent salvage chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and transplant compared to the patients treated with ABVD.”

According to the independent review facility, the 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the A+AVD arm and 77.2% in the ABVD arm.

Certain pre-specified subgroups of patients appeared to benefit more with A+AVD than with ABVD, including:

• Males
• Patients treated in North America
• Patients with involvement of more than 1 extranodal site
• Patients with International Prognostic Scores of 4 to 7
• Patients with stage IV disease
• Patients younger than 60.

Secondary endpoints

Secondary endpoints trended in favor of the A+AVD arm, although there were no significant differences between the treatment arms.

The objective response rate at the end of the randomized regimen was 86% in the A+AVD arm and 83% in the ABVD arm (P=0.12). The complete response rate was 73% and 70%, respectively (P=0.22).

The proportion of patients with a Deauville score ≤2 after the completion of frontline therapy was 85% in the A+AVD arm and 80% in the ABVD arm (P=0.03).

The interim 2-year overall survival rate was 97% in the A+AVD arm and 95% in the ABVD arm (hazard ratio=0.72; P=0.19).

Safety

“[T]he safety profile [of A+AVD] was generally consistent with that known for the single-agent components of the regimen,” Dr Connors said.

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the A+AVD arm and 98% in the ABVD arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 83% and 66%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 43% and 27%, respectively.

Common AEs (in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively) included neutropenia (58% and 45%), constipation (42% and 37%), vomiting (33% and 28%), fatigue (both 32%), diarrhea (27% and 18%), pyrexia (27% and 22%), abdominal pain (21% and 10%), and stomatitis (21% and 16%).

Peripheral neuropathy events were observed in 67% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 43% in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy was reported in 11% and 2%, respectively.

Febrile neutropenia occurred in 19% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 8% of those in the ABVD arm. However, prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was able to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In the A+AVD arm, the rate of febrile neutropenia was 11% among patients who received G-CSF and 21% among patients who did not.

Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 2% of patients in the A+AVD arm and 7% of those in the ABVD arm. Grade 3 or higher pulmonary toxicity was reported in 0.76% and 3%, respectively.

There were 9 deaths during treatment in the A+AVD arm. Seven were due to neutropenia or associated complications, and 2 were due to myocardial infarction. One of the patients who died of neutropenia had the condition prior to trial enrollment. The remaining 6 patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis.

In the ABVD arm, there were 13 deaths during treatment. Eleven were due to or associated with pulmonary-related toxicity, 1 was due to cardiopulmonary failure, and 1 death had an unknown cause.

Micrograph showing DLBCL

Preclinical research suggests the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor PQR309 has activity against several types of lymphoma and works well in combination with other agents.

PQR309 exhibited anti-lymphoma activity as a single agent and in combination with venetoclax, panobinostat, ibrutinib, lenalidomide, ARV-825, marizomib, and rituximab.

PQR309 demonstrated greater activity against B-cell lymphoma than T-cell lymphoma, and the inhibitor was able to overcome both primary and acquired resistance to idelalisib.

Francesco Bertoni, MD, of the Institute of Oncology Research in Bellinzona, Switzerland, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Clinical Cancer Research.

The work was funded by PIQUR Therapeutics AG, the company developing PQR309, and some study authors are PIQUR employees.

The researchers tested PQR309 in 49 human lymphoma cell lines—7 activated B-cell-like (ABC) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 18 germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), 2 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 4 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 5 anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

In most cell lines, PQR309 halted proliferation, mainly due to cell-cycle arrest with a block in G1. However, PQR309 induced apoptosis in 2 cell lines tested—SU-DHL-4 and TMD8.

The researchers noted that PQR309 was significantly more active in the B-cell lymphoma cell lines (DLBCL, MCL, CLL, and SMZL) than in the T-cell lymphoma cell line ALCL (P=0.028).

PQR309 exhibited similar activity in ABC and GCB DLBCL cell lines, de novo DLBCL, and DLBCL derived from transformed follicular lymphoma. TP53, MYC, and BCL2 status also had no significant effect on PQR309 activity.

The researchers compared cell lines that were very sensitive to PQR309 to those with low sensitivity to the drug and identified differences.

The team said that transcripts preferentially expressed in PQR309-sensitive cell lines were significantly enriched of genes involved in BCR pathway/signaling and BLIMP1 targets. Transcripts associated with less sensitive cell lines were enriched of members of proteasome pathway, response to unfolded proteins, MYC targets, XBP1 targets, genes downregulated by mTOR inhibitors, and genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic effects when combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, and the proteasome inhibitor marizomib.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic or additive effects when combined with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat, and the PROTAC BET inhibitor ARV-825.

In addition, PQR309 was active in lymphoma cell lines with primary and secondary resistance to the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib.

The researchers believe the results of this study, together with ongoing clinical studies of PQR309, can lead to better treatments for lymphoma patients and better understanding of the mechanisms of anti-lymphoma agents.

Micrograph showing DLBCL

Preclinical research suggests the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor PQR309 has activity against several types of lymphoma and works well in combination with other agents.

PQR309 exhibited anti-lymphoma activity as a single agent and in combination with venetoclax, panobinostat, ibrutinib, lenalidomide, ARV-825, marizomib, and rituximab.

PQR309 demonstrated greater activity against B-cell lymphoma than T-cell lymphoma, and the inhibitor was able to overcome both primary and acquired resistance to idelalisib.

Francesco Bertoni, MD, of the Institute of Oncology Research in Bellinzona, Switzerland, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Clinical Cancer Research.

The work was funded by PIQUR Therapeutics AG, the company developing PQR309, and some study authors are PIQUR employees.

The researchers tested PQR309 in 49 human lymphoma cell lines—7 activated B-cell-like (ABC) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 18 germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), 2 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 4 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 5 anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

In most cell lines, PQR309 halted proliferation, mainly due to cell-cycle arrest with a block in G1. However, PQR309 induced apoptosis in 2 cell lines tested—SU-DHL-4 and TMD8.

The researchers noted that PQR309 was significantly more active in the B-cell lymphoma cell lines (DLBCL, MCL, CLL, and SMZL) than in the T-cell lymphoma cell line ALCL (P=0.028).

PQR309 exhibited similar activity in ABC and GCB DLBCL cell lines, de novo DLBCL, and DLBCL derived from transformed follicular lymphoma. TP53, MYC, and BCL2 status also had no significant effect on PQR309 activity.

The researchers compared cell lines that were very sensitive to PQR309 to those with low sensitivity to the drug and identified differences.

The team said that transcripts preferentially expressed in PQR309-sensitive cell lines were significantly enriched of genes involved in BCR pathway/signaling and BLIMP1 targets. Transcripts associated with less sensitive cell lines were enriched of members of proteasome pathway, response to unfolded proteins, MYC targets, XBP1 targets, genes downregulated by mTOR inhibitors, and genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic effects when combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, and the proteasome inhibitor marizomib.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic or additive effects when combined with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat, and the PROTAC BET inhibitor ARV-825.

In addition, PQR309 was active in lymphoma cell lines with primary and secondary resistance to the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib.

The researchers believe the results of this study, together with ongoing clinical studies of PQR309, can lead to better treatments for lymphoma patients and better understanding of the mechanisms of anti-lymphoma agents.

Micrograph showing DLBCL

Preclinical research suggests the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor PQR309 has activity against several types of lymphoma and works well in combination with other agents.

PQR309 exhibited anti-lymphoma activity as a single agent and in combination with venetoclax, panobinostat, ibrutinib, lenalidomide, ARV-825, marizomib, and rituximab.

PQR309 demonstrated greater activity against B-cell lymphoma than T-cell lymphoma, and the inhibitor was able to overcome both primary and acquired resistance to idelalisib.

Francesco Bertoni, MD, of the Institute of Oncology Research in Bellinzona, Switzerland, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Clinical Cancer Research.

The work was funded by PIQUR Therapeutics AG, the company developing PQR309, and some study authors are PIQUR employees.

The researchers tested PQR309 in 49 human lymphoma cell lines—7 activated B-cell-like (ABC) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 18 germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), 2 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 4 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 5 anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

In most cell lines, PQR309 halted proliferation, mainly due to cell-cycle arrest with a block in G1. However, PQR309 induced apoptosis in 2 cell lines tested—SU-DHL-4 and TMD8.

The researchers noted that PQR309 was significantly more active in the B-cell lymphoma cell lines (DLBCL, MCL, CLL, and SMZL) than in the T-cell lymphoma cell line ALCL (P=0.028).

PQR309 exhibited similar activity in ABC and GCB DLBCL cell lines, de novo DLBCL, and DLBCL derived from transformed follicular lymphoma. TP53, MYC, and BCL2 status also had no significant effect on PQR309 activity.

The researchers compared cell lines that were very sensitive to PQR309 to those with low sensitivity to the drug and identified differences.

The team said that transcripts preferentially expressed in PQR309-sensitive cell lines were significantly enriched of genes involved in BCR pathway/signaling and BLIMP1 targets. Transcripts associated with less sensitive cell lines were enriched of members of proteasome pathway, response to unfolded proteins, MYC targets, XBP1 targets, genes downregulated by mTOR inhibitors, and genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic effects when combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, and the proteasome inhibitor marizomib.

PQR309 demonstrated synergistic or additive effects when combined with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat, and the PROTAC BET inhibitor ARV-825.

In addition, PQR309 was active in lymphoma cell lines with primary and secondary resistance to the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib.

The researchers believe the results of this study, together with ongoing clinical studies of PQR309, can lead to better treatments for lymphoma patients and better understanding of the mechanisms of anti-lymphoma agents.

Photo from NIH

A study of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) suggests these individuals have an increased risk of developing hypertension as adults.

The CCSs studied had more than double the rate of hypertension observed in the matched general population.

Sex, age, race, and weight were all significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, but most treatment types were not.

The exception was nephrectomy, which was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.

Todd M. Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“High blood pressure is an important modifiable risk factor that increases the risk of heart problems in everyone,” Dr Gibson said. “Research has shown that high blood pressure can have an even greater negative impact on survivors of childhood cancer who were treated with cardiotoxic therapies such as anthracyclines or chest radiation.”

To assess the prevalence of hypertension among CCSs, Dr Gibson and his colleagues examined 3016 adults who were 10-year survivors of childhood cancers. The subjects were enrolled in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, which provides ongoing medical assessments of CCSs to advance knowledge of their long-term health outcomes.

The subjects’ mean age at the initial study assessment was 32, and 52% were male. Most (83%) were non-Hispanic white, 14% were non-Hispanic black, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were “other.”

Thirty-seven percent of subjects had leukemia, 12% had Hodgkin lymphoma, and 7% had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Eighty-six percent of subjects had received chemotherapy, and 59% received radiation.

Results

Subjects were considered to have hypertension if their systolic blood pressure was 140 or greater, their diastolic blood pressure was 90 or greater, or if they had been previously diagnosed with hypertension and were taking antihypertensive medication.

The prevalence of hypertension was 2.6 times higher among CCSs than expected, based on age-, sex-, race- and body mass index-specific rates in the general population.

In addition, the incidence of hypertension increased for CCSs over time. Thirteen percent of CCSs had hypertension at age 30, 37% had it at age 40, and more than 70% had it at age 50.

Dr Gibson said rates of hypertension in CCSs matched rates in the general population of people about a decade older.

The researchers identified several factors that were significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, including:

• Male sex (odd ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14–1.67)
• Non-Hispanic black race (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28–2.16)
• Older age at assessment (OR per 1 year of age, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08–1.11)
• Being overweight (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21–2.07)
• Obesity (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 2.34–3.88).

Exposure to any type of radiation or chemotherapy was not significantly associated with hypertension, but nephrectomy was (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.11–2.53).

Dr Gibson said the lack of an association between hypertension and radiation/chemotherapy was surprising. It suggests the connection between childhood cancer survival and adult hypertension is multifactorial and worthy of future research.

In the meantime, he said, clinicians should be mindful that CCSs are more likely than the general public to develop hypertension.

“The good news is that, unlike prior cancer therapy, high blood pressure is a modifiable risk factor,” Dr Gibson noted. “Research is needed to identify effective interventions to prevent hypertension in survivors, but our results emphasize the importance of blood pressure surveillance and management.”

Dr Gibson said a limitation of this study is that it was based on blood pressure measurements taken at a single study visit. A clinical diagnosis of hypertension typically requires measurements taken at multiple intervals.

In addition, the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort is a group of CCSs who undergo frequent clinical follow-up, so its participants may have benefited from being monitored and may therefore be in better health than CCSs who have less comprehensive follow-up.

Photo from NIH

A study of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) suggests these individuals have an increased risk of developing hypertension as adults.

The CCSs studied had more than double the rate of hypertension observed in the matched general population.

Sex, age, race, and weight were all significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, but most treatment types were not.

The exception was nephrectomy, which was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.

Todd M. Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“High blood pressure is an important modifiable risk factor that increases the risk of heart problems in everyone,” Dr Gibson said. “Research has shown that high blood pressure can have an even greater negative impact on survivors of childhood cancer who were treated with cardiotoxic therapies such as anthracyclines or chest radiation.”

To assess the prevalence of hypertension among CCSs, Dr Gibson and his colleagues examined 3016 adults who were 10-year survivors of childhood cancers. The subjects were enrolled in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, which provides ongoing medical assessments of CCSs to advance knowledge of their long-term health outcomes.

The subjects’ mean age at the initial study assessment was 32, and 52% were male. Most (83%) were non-Hispanic white, 14% were non-Hispanic black, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were “other.”

Thirty-seven percent of subjects had leukemia, 12% had Hodgkin lymphoma, and 7% had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Eighty-six percent of subjects had received chemotherapy, and 59% received radiation.

Results

Subjects were considered to have hypertension if their systolic blood pressure was 140 or greater, their diastolic blood pressure was 90 or greater, or if they had been previously diagnosed with hypertension and were taking antihypertensive medication.

The prevalence of hypertension was 2.6 times higher among CCSs than expected, based on age-, sex-, race- and body mass index-specific rates in the general population.

In addition, the incidence of hypertension increased for CCSs over time. Thirteen percent of CCSs had hypertension at age 30, 37% had it at age 40, and more than 70% had it at age 50.

Dr Gibson said rates of hypertension in CCSs matched rates in the general population of people about a decade older.

The researchers identified several factors that were significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, including:

• Male sex (odd ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14–1.67)
• Non-Hispanic black race (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28–2.16)
• Older age at assessment (OR per 1 year of age, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08–1.11)
• Being overweight (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21–2.07)
• Obesity (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 2.34–3.88).

Exposure to any type of radiation or chemotherapy was not significantly associated with hypertension, but nephrectomy was (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.11–2.53).

Dr Gibson said the lack of an association between hypertension and radiation/chemotherapy was surprising. It suggests the connection between childhood cancer survival and adult hypertension is multifactorial and worthy of future research.

In the meantime, he said, clinicians should be mindful that CCSs are more likely than the general public to develop hypertension.

“The good news is that, unlike prior cancer therapy, high blood pressure is a modifiable risk factor,” Dr Gibson noted. “Research is needed to identify effective interventions to prevent hypertension in survivors, but our results emphasize the importance of blood pressure surveillance and management.”

Dr Gibson said a limitation of this study is that it was based on blood pressure measurements taken at a single study visit. A clinical diagnosis of hypertension typically requires measurements taken at multiple intervals.

In addition, the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort is a group of CCSs who undergo frequent clinical follow-up, so its participants may have benefited from being monitored and may therefore be in better health than CCSs who have less comprehensive follow-up.

Photo from NIH

A study of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) suggests these individuals have an increased risk of developing hypertension as adults.

The CCSs studied had more than double the rate of hypertension observed in the matched general population.

Sex, age, race, and weight were all significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, but most treatment types were not.

The exception was nephrectomy, which was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.

Todd M. Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“High blood pressure is an important modifiable risk factor that increases the risk of heart problems in everyone,” Dr Gibson said. “Research has shown that high blood pressure can have an even greater negative impact on survivors of childhood cancer who were treated with cardiotoxic therapies such as anthracyclines or chest radiation.”

To assess the prevalence of hypertension among CCSs, Dr Gibson and his colleagues examined 3016 adults who were 10-year survivors of childhood cancers. The subjects were enrolled in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, which provides ongoing medical assessments of CCSs to advance knowledge of their long-term health outcomes.

The subjects’ mean age at the initial study assessment was 32, and 52% were male. Most (83%) were non-Hispanic white, 14% were non-Hispanic black, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were “other.”

Thirty-seven percent of subjects had leukemia, 12% had Hodgkin lymphoma, and 7% had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Eighty-six percent of subjects had received chemotherapy, and 59% received radiation.

Results

Subjects were considered to have hypertension if their systolic blood pressure was 140 or greater, their diastolic blood pressure was 90 or greater, or if they had been previously diagnosed with hypertension and were taking antihypertensive medication.

The prevalence of hypertension was 2.6 times higher among CCSs than expected, based on age-, sex-, race- and body mass index-specific rates in the general population.

In addition, the incidence of hypertension increased for CCSs over time. Thirteen percent of CCSs had hypertension at age 30, 37% had it at age 40, and more than 70% had it at age 50.

Dr Gibson said rates of hypertension in CCSs matched rates in the general population of people about a decade older.

The researchers identified several factors that were significantly associated with hypertension among CCSs, including:

• Male sex (odd ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14–1.67)
• Non-Hispanic black race (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28–2.16)
• Older age at assessment (OR per 1 year of age, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08–1.11)
• Being overweight (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21–2.07)
• Obesity (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 2.34–3.88).

Exposure to any type of radiation or chemotherapy was not significantly associated with hypertension, but nephrectomy was (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.11–2.53).

Dr Gibson said the lack of an association between hypertension and radiation/chemotherapy was surprising. It suggests the connection between childhood cancer survival and adult hypertension is multifactorial and worthy of future research.

In the meantime, he said, clinicians should be mindful that CCSs are more likely than the general public to develop hypertension.

“The good news is that, unlike prior cancer therapy, high blood pressure is a modifiable risk factor,” Dr Gibson noted. “Research is needed to identify effective interventions to prevent hypertension in survivors, but our results emphasize the importance of blood pressure surveillance and management.”

Dr Gibson said a limitation of this study is that it was based on blood pressure measurements taken at a single study visit. A clinical diagnosis of hypertension typically requires measurements taken at multiple intervals.

In addition, the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort is a group of CCSs who undergo frequent clinical follow-up, so its participants may have benefited from being monitored and may therefore be in better health than CCSs who have less comprehensive follow-up.

SAN ANTONIO – Young women who were survivors of hematologic cancer were more likely to have a diagnosis of infertility than cancer-free women, according to a large population-based study.

Using Ontario, Canada, universal health care databases, Maria Velez, MD, and her colleagues compared young female hematologic cancer survivors with age-matched women who were cancer-free, finding that 20.4% of the cancer survivors and 15% of the cancer-free women had an infertility diagnosis (P less than .001).

juststock

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

*Correction 11/14/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the P values.

SAN ANTONIO – Young women who were survivors of hematologic cancer were more likely to have a diagnosis of infertility than cancer-free women, according to a large population-based study.

Using Ontario, Canada, universal health care databases, Maria Velez, MD, and her colleagues compared young female hematologic cancer survivors with age-matched women who were cancer-free, finding that 20.4% of the cancer survivors and 15% of the cancer-free women had an infertility diagnosis (P less than .001).

juststock

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

*Correction 11/14/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the P values.

SAN ANTONIO – Young women who were survivors of hematologic cancer were more likely to have a diagnosis of infertility than cancer-free women, according to a large population-based study.

Using Ontario, Canada, universal health care databases, Maria Velez, MD, and her colleagues compared young female hematologic cancer survivors with age-matched women who were cancer-free, finding that 20.4% of the cancer survivors and 15% of the cancer-free women had an infertility diagnosis (P less than .001).

juststock

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

*Correction 11/14/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the P values.

Compared with standard psychosocial care, a one-on-one skills-based intervention improved psychosocial outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer, according to results of a pilot randomized study presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

The novel intervention was associated with improved patient resilience, cancer-specific quality of life, and hope, plus fewer cases of depression, said lead study author Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, director of palliative care and resilience research at Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

Brief, developmentally-targeted psychosocial interventions are promising for this population of adolescents and young adults with cancer, Dr. Rosenberg said in a press conference at the symposium, which was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

Adolescents and young adults with cancer tend to have poor psychosocial outcomes, possibly because they have not yet developed skills that would help them manage hardships they encounter as a result of having cancer, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

She and her colleagues previously designed and tested the intervention, called Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM). The intervention is brief and focuses on helping patients develop skills in stress management, goal setting, positive reframing, and benefit finding.

The clinical evaluation of PRISM presented at the symposium included 100 English-speaking patients aged 12-25 who had new or recently recurrent cancer. They were randomized to the skills-based intervention or standard psychosocial care.

In the PRISM group, the adolescents and young adults participated in four in-person one-on-one training sessions lasting 30-60 minutes, plus a facilitated family meeting. Patients were surveyed at baseline and again at 6 months to measure the impact of the intervention.

A total of 36 patients in the PRISM arm and 38 in the usual-care arm completed the study. Most attrition was due to medical complications or death, the investigators said.

Results showed that, compared with standard psychosocial care, the skills-based intervention was associated with significant improvements in resilience (+2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-4.0), hope (+2.8; 95% CI, 0.5-5.1), quality of life (+6.3; 95% CI, –0.8-13.5), and a trend toward less distress (–1.6; 95% CI –3.3-0.0).

Fewer cases of depression occurred in the PRISM group compared with the standard care group (two versus eight cases), Dr. Rosenberg added.

The psychosocial toll of cancer can be significant, especially in a vulnerable population such as adolescents and young adults, according to Andrew S. Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “The intervention by Rosenberg and her coauthors represents an important beacon of hope for improving the cancer experience for this population,” Dr. Epstein said.

Compared with standard psychosocial care, a one-on-one skills-based intervention improved psychosocial outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer, according to results of a pilot randomized study presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

The novel intervention was associated with improved patient resilience, cancer-specific quality of life, and hope, plus fewer cases of depression, said lead study author Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, director of palliative care and resilience research at Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

Brief, developmentally-targeted psychosocial interventions are promising for this population of adolescents and young adults with cancer, Dr. Rosenberg said in a press conference at the symposium, which was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

Adolescents and young adults with cancer tend to have poor psychosocial outcomes, possibly because they have not yet developed skills that would help them manage hardships they encounter as a result of having cancer, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

She and her colleagues previously designed and tested the intervention, called Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM). The intervention is brief and focuses on helping patients develop skills in stress management, goal setting, positive reframing, and benefit finding.

The clinical evaluation of PRISM presented at the symposium included 100 English-speaking patients aged 12-25 who had new or recently recurrent cancer. They were randomized to the skills-based intervention or standard psychosocial care.

In the PRISM group, the adolescents and young adults participated in four in-person one-on-one training sessions lasting 30-60 minutes, plus a facilitated family meeting. Patients were surveyed at baseline and again at 6 months to measure the impact of the intervention.

A total of 36 patients in the PRISM arm and 38 in the usual-care arm completed the study. Most attrition was due to medical complications or death, the investigators said.

Results showed that, compared with standard psychosocial care, the skills-based intervention was associated with significant improvements in resilience (+2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-4.0), hope (+2.8; 95% CI, 0.5-5.1), quality of life (+6.3; 95% CI, –0.8-13.5), and a trend toward less distress (–1.6; 95% CI –3.3-0.0).

Fewer cases of depression occurred in the PRISM group compared with the standard care group (two versus eight cases), Dr. Rosenberg added.

The psychosocial toll of cancer can be significant, especially in a vulnerable population such as adolescents and young adults, according to Andrew S. Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “The intervention by Rosenberg and her coauthors represents an important beacon of hope for improving the cancer experience for this population,” Dr. Epstein said.

Compared with standard psychosocial care, a one-on-one skills-based intervention improved psychosocial outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer, according to results of a pilot randomized study presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

The novel intervention was associated with improved patient resilience, cancer-specific quality of life, and hope, plus fewer cases of depression, said lead study author Abby R. Rosenberg, MD, director of palliative care and resilience research at Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

Brief, developmentally-targeted psychosocial interventions are promising for this population of adolescents and young adults with cancer, Dr. Rosenberg said in a press conference at the symposium, which was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

Adolescents and young adults with cancer tend to have poor psychosocial outcomes, possibly because they have not yet developed skills that would help them manage hardships they encounter as a result of having cancer, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

She and her colleagues previously designed and tested the intervention, called Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM). The intervention is brief and focuses on helping patients develop skills in stress management, goal setting, positive reframing, and benefit finding.

The clinical evaluation of PRISM presented at the symposium included 100 English-speaking patients aged 12-25 who had new or recently recurrent cancer. They were randomized to the skills-based intervention or standard psychosocial care.

In the PRISM group, the adolescents and young adults participated in four in-person one-on-one training sessions lasting 30-60 minutes, plus a facilitated family meeting. Patients were surveyed at baseline and again at 6 months to measure the impact of the intervention.

A total of 36 patients in the PRISM arm and 38 in the usual-care arm completed the study. Most attrition was due to medical complications or death, the investigators said.

Results showed that, compared with standard psychosocial care, the skills-based intervention was associated with significant improvements in resilience (+2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-4.0), hope (+2.8; 95% CI, 0.5-5.1), quality of life (+6.3; 95% CI, –0.8-13.5), and a trend toward less distress (–1.6; 95% CI –3.3-0.0).

Fewer cases of depression occurred in the PRISM group compared with the standard care group (two versus eight cases), Dr. Rosenberg added.

The psychosocial toll of cancer can be significant, especially in a vulnerable population such as adolescents and young adults, according to Andrew S. Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “The intervention by Rosenberg and her coauthors represents an important beacon of hope for improving the cancer experience for this population,” Dr. Epstein said.

Photo by Bill Branson

Survey results suggest childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) in the US are more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to experience “job lock,” or staying at a job to keep work-related health insurance.

CCSs are also more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to report problems paying medical bills and being denied health insurance.

Anne Kirchhoff, PhD, of Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and her colleagues reported these findings in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers analyzed 394 CCSs from pediatric oncology institutions across the US, along with 128 of their siblings who had no history of cancer. All study participants worked 35 hours or more per week.

The most common cancer diagnosis among CCSs was leukemia (35.4%), followed by Hodgkin lymphoma (14.9%). Most patients had undergone chemotherapy (77.2%), radiotherapy (63.9%), and surgery (81.1%).

Overall, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were similar between CCSs and siblings. However, CCSs were more likely than siblings to have severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions—33.9% and 17.7%, respectively (P<0.001).

Most CCSs (88.0%) and siblings (88.5%) had employer-sponsored health insurance. Three percent of siblings and 5.3% of CCSs had individual insurance; 1.9% and 2.3%, respectively, had public insurance; and 6.7% and 4.4%, respectively, were uninsured.

Results

CCSs were more likely than siblings to report:

• Job lock—23.2% and 16.9%, respectively (P=0.16)
• Problems paying medical bills—20.1% and 12.9%, respectively (P=0.09)
• Denial of health insurance—13.4% and 1.8%, respectively (P<0.001).

In a multivariable analysis, insurance denial remained significantly more common among CCSs than siblings (relative risk [RR]=7.38).

In another multivariable analysis, 38% of CCSs with a previous insurance denial reported job lock, compared with 20% of those who never experienced insurance denial (RR=1.60). And 44% of CCSs who reported problems paying their medical bills also reported job lock, compared to 16% of those who had no problems paying medical bills (RR=2.43).

The researchers also found that female CCSs (RR=1.70) and CCSs with severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions (RR=1.72) were more likely to report job lock.

“This information gives us a feel for high-risk groups of survivors who may need more information about insurance,” Dr Kirchhoff said. “Many people experience a gap in education and literacy around insurance, and it’s important for people to understand their options—even those who are employed and consistently had access to insurance through work. We want to know what their concerns are so we can help patients and survivors. Getting healthcare should not be a worry for cancer survivors.”

“Survivors have been through a lot when they were younger and understand the importance of making sure they can get healthcare when they need it. I think a lot of them also saw what their parents and families went through in terms of the financial stress and burden of dealing with a health crisis. So they’re just primed to understand the importance of health insurance.”

Dr Kirchhoff noted that this study was conducted as the Affordable Care Act was rolling out. Therefore, she would like to do a follow-up study to see if the insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion lessened job-related insurance worries.

Photo by Bill Branson

Survey results suggest childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) in the US are more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to experience “job lock,” or staying at a job to keep work-related health insurance.

CCSs are also more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to report problems paying medical bills and being denied health insurance.

Anne Kirchhoff, PhD, of Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and her colleagues reported these findings in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers analyzed 394 CCSs from pediatric oncology institutions across the US, along with 128 of their siblings who had no history of cancer. All study participants worked 35 hours or more per week.

The most common cancer diagnosis among CCSs was leukemia (35.4%), followed by Hodgkin lymphoma (14.9%). Most patients had undergone chemotherapy (77.2%), radiotherapy (63.9%), and surgery (81.1%).

Overall, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were similar between CCSs and siblings. However, CCSs were more likely than siblings to have severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions—33.9% and 17.7%, respectively (P<0.001).

Most CCSs (88.0%) and siblings (88.5%) had employer-sponsored health insurance. Three percent of siblings and 5.3% of CCSs had individual insurance; 1.9% and 2.3%, respectively, had public insurance; and 6.7% and 4.4%, respectively, were uninsured.

Results

CCSs were more likely than siblings to report:

• Job lock—23.2% and 16.9%, respectively (P=0.16)
• Problems paying medical bills—20.1% and 12.9%, respectively (P=0.09)
• Denial of health insurance—13.4% and 1.8%, respectively (P<0.001).

In a multivariable analysis, insurance denial remained significantly more common among CCSs than siblings (relative risk [RR]=7.38).

In another multivariable analysis, 38% of CCSs with a previous insurance denial reported job lock, compared with 20% of those who never experienced insurance denial (RR=1.60). And 44% of CCSs who reported problems paying their medical bills also reported job lock, compared to 16% of those who had no problems paying medical bills (RR=2.43).

The researchers also found that female CCSs (RR=1.70) and CCSs with severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions (RR=1.72) were more likely to report job lock.

“This information gives us a feel for high-risk groups of survivors who may need more information about insurance,” Dr Kirchhoff said. “Many people experience a gap in education and literacy around insurance, and it’s important for people to understand their options—even those who are employed and consistently had access to insurance through work. We want to know what their concerns are so we can help patients and survivors. Getting healthcare should not be a worry for cancer survivors.”

“Survivors have been through a lot when they were younger and understand the importance of making sure they can get healthcare when they need it. I think a lot of them also saw what their parents and families went through in terms of the financial stress and burden of dealing with a health crisis. So they’re just primed to understand the importance of health insurance.”

Dr Kirchhoff noted that this study was conducted as the Affordable Care Act was rolling out. Therefore, she would like to do a follow-up study to see if the insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion lessened job-related insurance worries.

Photo by Bill Branson

Survey results suggest childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) in the US are more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to experience “job lock,” or staying at a job to keep work-related health insurance.

CCSs are also more likely than individuals without a history of cancer to report problems paying medical bills and being denied health insurance.

Anne Kirchhoff, PhD, of Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and her colleagues reported these findings in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers analyzed 394 CCSs from pediatric oncology institutions across the US, along with 128 of their siblings who had no history of cancer. All study participants worked 35 hours or more per week.

The most common cancer diagnosis among CCSs was leukemia (35.4%), followed by Hodgkin lymphoma (14.9%). Most patients had undergone chemotherapy (77.2%), radiotherapy (63.9%), and surgery (81.1%).

Overall, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were similar between CCSs and siblings. However, CCSs were more likely than siblings to have severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions—33.9% and 17.7%, respectively (P<0.001).

Most CCSs (88.0%) and siblings (88.5%) had employer-sponsored health insurance. Three percent of siblings and 5.3% of CCSs had individual insurance; 1.9% and 2.3%, respectively, had public insurance; and 6.7% and 4.4%, respectively, were uninsured.

Results

CCSs were more likely than siblings to report:

• Job lock—23.2% and 16.9%, respectively (P=0.16)
• Problems paying medical bills—20.1% and 12.9%, respectively (P=0.09)
• Denial of health insurance—13.4% and 1.8%, respectively (P<0.001).

In a multivariable analysis, insurance denial remained significantly more common among CCSs than siblings (relative risk [RR]=7.38).

In another multivariable analysis, 38% of CCSs with a previous insurance denial reported job lock, compared with 20% of those who never experienced insurance denial (RR=1.60). And 44% of CCSs who reported problems paying their medical bills also reported job lock, compared to 16% of those who had no problems paying medical bills (RR=2.43).

The researchers also found that female CCSs (RR=1.70) and CCSs with severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic conditions (RR=1.72) were more likely to report job lock.

“This information gives us a feel for high-risk groups of survivors who may need more information about insurance,” Dr Kirchhoff said. “Many people experience a gap in education and literacy around insurance, and it’s important for people to understand their options—even those who are employed and consistently had access to insurance through work. We want to know what their concerns are so we can help patients and survivors. Getting healthcare should not be a worry for cancer survivors.”

“Survivors have been through a lot when they were younger and understand the importance of making sure they can get healthcare when they need it. I think a lot of them also saw what their parents and families went through in terms of the financial stress and burden of dealing with a health crisis. So they’re just primed to understand the importance of health insurance.”

Dr Kirchhoff noted that this study was conducted as the Affordable Care Act was rolling out. Therefore, she would like to do a follow-up study to see if the insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion lessened job-related insurance worries.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection have higher cancer rates than countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection, according to a study published in Evolutionary Applications.

Researchers said this is because modern medicine is enabling people to survive cancers, and their genetic backgrounds are passing from one generation to the next.

The team said the rate of some cancers has doubled and even quadrupled over the past 100 to 150 years, and human evolution has moved away from “survival of the fittest.”

“Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world,” said study author Maciej Henneberg, PhD, DSc, of the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

“Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect—allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer.”

“Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the ‘janitor of the gene pool.’ Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence.”

Country comparison

The researchers studied global cancer data from the World Health Organization as well as other health and socioeconomic data from the United Nations and the World Bank of 173 countries. The team compared the top 10 countries with the highest opportunities for natural selection to the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection.

“We looked at countries that offered the greatest opportunity to survive cancer compared with those that didn’t,” said study author Wenpeng You, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide. “This does not only take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, urbanization, and quality of medical services but also low mortality and fertility rates, which are the 2 distinguishing features in the ‘better’ world.”

“Countries with low mortality rates may allow more people with cancer genetic background to reproduce and pass cancer genes/mutations to the next generation. Meanwhile, low fertility rates in these countries may not be able to have diverse biological variations to provide the opportunity for selecting a naturally fit population—for example, people without or with less cancer genetic background. Low mortality rate and low fertility rate in the ‘better’ world may have formed a self-reinforcing cycle which has accumulated cancer genetic background at a greater rate than previously thought.”

Based on the researchers’ analysis, the 20 countries are:

Cancer incidence

The researchers found the rates of most cancers were higher in the 10 countries with the lowest opportunities for natural selection. The incidence of all cancers was 2.326 times higher in the low-opportunity countries than the high-opportunity ones.

The increased incidences of hematologic malignancies were as follows:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma—2.019 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Hodgkin lymphoma—3.314 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Leukemia—3.574 times higher in the low-opportunity countries
• Multiple myeloma—4.257 times higher in the low-opportunity countries .

Dr Henneberg said that, having removed natural selection as the “janitor of the gene pool,” our modern society is faced with a controversial issue.

“It may be that the only way humankind can be rid of cancer once and for all is through genetic engineering—to repair our genes and take cancer out of the equation,” he said.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) has announced the release of the newly completed NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™.

This resource includes information designed to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of radiation therapy in cancer patients.

The content is based on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and includes information from the 41 guidelines that reference radiation therapy.

“By compiling every recommendation for radiation therapy in one place, we’ve made it significantly easier for specialists . . .  to stay up-to-date on the very latest recommendations, regardless of how many different cancer types they treat,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

“This targeted content provides radiation oncologists with the specific, cutting-edge information they need, without forcing them to sift through any extraneous information. It’s part of our ongoing effort to always provide the most pertinent data on emerging treatment practices in the clearest, most efficient way possible.”

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium includes a full complement of radiation therapy recommendations found in the current NCCN guidelines, including specific treatment modalities such as 2D/3D conformal external beam radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, image-guided radiation therapy, low dose-rate/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

NCCN first announced the launch of the Radiation Therapy Compendium in March at the NCCN Annual Conference: Improving the Quality, Effectiveness, and Efficiency of Cancer Care.

At the time, the NCCN released a preliminary version of the compendium featuring 24 cancer types. The newly completed version now contains all 41 disease sites that are currently being treated using radiation therapy.

The compendium will be updated on a continual basis in conjunction with the library of clinical guidelines.

For more information and to access the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium, visit NCCN.org/RTCompendium. The compendium is available free-of-charge through March 2018.

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”