Hodgkin Lymphoma

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

While people living with rare cancers continue to face daunting obstacles, progress is being made, and there are reasons to hope for a better future. Advances in genomic testing and precision medicine provide increasing evidence that rare cancers can be more efficiently and effectively diagnosed and treated. Genomic tests examine tumor DNA to identify mutations that are unique to an individual’s cancer. This genetic information enables a more precise diagnosis and targeted treatment approach. Jim Palma, Co-Lead of the NORD Rare Cancer Coalition, said “There is promise for rare cancer patients due to increased legislative efforts to cover the costs of genomic testing coupled by an increase in FDA approvals for targeted and tissue agnostic therapies.”

In 2019, the National Cancer Institute established MyPART, a vast pediatric and adult rare tumor network that aims to bolster patient involvement in research and develop effective therapies through tumor sample collection, shared data, shared samples, new methods to test treatments, and new trial designs. In 2022, MyPART welcomed NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition as an advocacy partner.

Meanwhile, advocacy organizations are giving rare cancer a rising voice. NORD’s Rare Cancer Coalition unites rare cancer patient advocacy organizations and helps them drive progress together. The coalition promotes research and awareness through its annual Rare Cancer Day (September 30) campaign. Additionally, NORD has produced over 22 continuing medical education modules on rare cancers in collaboration with PlatformQ Health, providing updates on new therapies and treatment approaches. NORD also offers rare disease reports and educational videos on rare cancers, sessions inclusive of rare cancer topics at the annual NORD Summit, and a quarterly e-newsletter, “Caring for Rare” for healthcare professionals. Please visit us at rarediseases.org to access these resources.

Much work on rare cancers remains to be done, but the progress over recent years points to better outcomes moving forward. We are grateful for the work you do and your dedication to your patients, including those with rare cancers and other rare conditions. We hope you will find the information in this special issue useful for your clinical practice.

– Katie Kowalski, MPH
Associate Director of Education
National Organization for Rare Disorders

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

This edition of Rare Diseases Report: Cancers highlights the latest breakthroughs and remaining unmet needs in the management of rare cancers. In addition to celebrating the great progress that has been made in recent years, we also discuss new challenges, such as how the healthcare system can prepare to manage the growing number of rare cancer survivors who are living longer due to improvements in disease management. 

INTRODUCTION

NORD: Making Progress Through Collaboration
By Katie Kowalski, MPH

IN THIS ISSUE

The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
By Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD

Progress in Ovarian Cancer: Discovery of Fallopian Tube Involvement
By Ronny Drapkin, MD, PhD

An Evolving Understanding of Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung
By Rajwanth Veluswamy, MD, MSCR

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Reflecting on 2 Decades of Clinical Advancements
By Jason K. Sicklick, MD, FACS

Progress in Treating Testicular Cancer
By Liang Cheng, MD

Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma
By Ann LaCasce, MD, MMSc

Targeted Therapies in Younger and Older Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
By Reem Karmali, MD, MS

Advances in Management of Relapsed/Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia
By Robert J. Kreitman, MD

Treatment Needs of Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
By Harry Erba, MD, PhD

Progress in Management of Advanced Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in Children
By Susan Colace, MD, MSCI

Background

Hodgkin lymphoma occurs in fewer than 9,000 individuals in the United States each year,¹ but it is one of the most common types of cancer in AYAs.² For the purposes of cHL, AYA is typically defined as an age range of 18 to 39 years, which covers the first of 2 bimodal peaks in incidence but stops short of the second.^3,4 The first of these peaks occurs between the ages of 15 and 34 years, while the second begins at about age 55.⁵ Children younger than 15 years of age can also develop Hodgkin lymphoma, but it is less common.⁶

In AYAs and in adults, more than 90% of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma have cHL.⁷ Most AYAs present with the nodular sclerosis subtype, but cHL is managed differently in pediatric patients versus in adult centers.^8,9 Evidence suggests that the specific risks of common treatment protocols, although similar, are not the same in AYAs as in adults.^10,11 Even though the literature evaluating the presentation and management of AYA cHL has been growing since 2005, when the AYA Oncology Progress Review Group called for AYAs to be recognized
as a distinct group, clinical trials specific to AYA cHL remain limited.⁹

Major Hodgkin lymphoma guidelines only partially address AYAs as a distinct group. In guidelines issued by the National Cancer Institute, the differences in clinical presentation of AYAs are described for young children, AYAs, and older adults, but there are no treatment recommendations specific to AYAs.¹² Guidelines from the EuroNet Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma Group offer recommendations for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma, but do not differentiate between children and adolescents.¹³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) provides separate treatment recommendations for patients 18 years or younger and those who are older than 18.^14,15 For Hodgkin lymphoma, AYA is not addressed as a separate category even though the NCCN has provided general guidelines for treatment of malignancies in AYA.¹⁶

First-line therapies are effective in children, AYAs, and adults. Survival rates at 5 years have increased steadily, approaching or exceeding 90% across age groups even for patients with unfavorable risk characteristics.¹⁷ This success has permitted greater focus on developing strategies that preserve efficacy with lower acute and long-term risks.

Risk-Adapted Therapies

While the potential for new and novel therapies to reduce the risk of long-term toxicities continues to be explored, adjusting existing regimens to reduce these risks has proven to be a viable strategy. This adjustment is a standard of care in the pediatric setting based on results from such studies as German GPOH-HD 95, which suggested that doses of radiotherapy, a major contributor to late toxicities,¹⁸ can be omitted in patients with a complete response after chemotherapy.¹¹ This pediatric trial contained both younger children and adolescents, but subsequent secondary analyses looking specifically at AYAs in this and other trials have suggested that efficacy is similarly preserved with risk-adapted strategies.⁹

However, due to AYA patients with cHL being treated using both pediatric and adult approaches, the persistent debate about optimal therapies in this age group complicates the effort to define a well-accepted strategy for risk adjustment. While risk-adapted strategies that rely on interim positron emission tomography (PET) to calibrate treatment intensity are now being used routinely across age stratifications, other initiatives are creating additional opportunities to gauge the impact on late effects in AYAs. These include strategies to improve collaboration across groups of trialists and data generated by observational cohorts, which can evaluate late effects not captured in time-limited clinical trials.

Among recent data supporting risk-adjusted therapy, the toxicity outcomes from a multicenter trial of PET-guided intensive treatment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cHL were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.¹⁹ This phase 3 trial enrolled patients younger than 60 years, 79% of whom were younger than 45 years. Building on previous evidence that PET guidance improves the safety of eBEACOPP (escalated doses of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), nearly 1,500 patients were randomized to this strategy or to PET-guided BrECADD, a modified eBEACOPP in which the antibody conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) was substituted for bleomycin. For an adjudicated endpoint of treatment-related morbidity, the experimental BrECAAD regimen reduced the risk by nearly 30% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72). It is unclear whether this strategy will be used in the United States, where trials have been built on ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) rather than BEACOPP.

Efficacy data from this trial are not yet available, and these data will be important. There is concern that PET-directed therapy might result in lower toxicity at a cost of reduced rates of disease control. It is possible that the serious consequences of late toxicities—including infertility, compromised cardiovascular function, secondary cancers, and other organ damage—might need to be balanced against some loss of efficacy.

Novel Targeted Therapies

The goal of reducing late toxicities of cHL therapy in AYAs is also likely to be advanced by novel therapies. Research endeavors include a multicenter collaboration between US and Canadian investigators that is exploring the combination of nivolumab (a checkpoint inhibitor) plus BV.²⁰ The trial recently completed accrual and includes both adult and pediatric patients. If novel agents prove effective for improving efficacy while reducing the risk of late complications in AYAs, they are expected to have a profound effect on clinical practice.

Arguably, the era of targeted and novel therapies in cHL was initiated more than 10 years ago with the introduction of BV for the treatment of advanced disease in older adults.²¹ BV was moved into the front line for patients 18 years of age or older with advanced cHL in a trial that compared the standard of ABVD to the same drugs with BV substituted for bleomycin.²² In this study, the BV-containing regimen was associated with a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .04) and a lower rate of adverse events, including pulmonary toxicity (1% vs 3%) after 2 years of follow-up.

A similar study recently associated a BV-containing regimen with even greater efficacy in pediatric high-risk cHL.²³ In this multicenter study with 600 treatment-naïve patients ranging in age from 2 to 21 years, the standard pediatric regimen of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide was compared to the same regimen with BV substituted for bleomycin. With event-free survival as the primary endpoint, the experimental regimen was associated with a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of an adverse event or death (HR 0.41). However, no substantial differences were noted in toxicity after a follow-up of 42 months. It not yet clear whether the elimination of bleomycin will translate into less late toxicity, such as pulmonary or cardiovascular morbidity.

In the era of targeted therapies, the experience with BV has been a step toward more effective treatments using novel mechanisms of action to improve outcomes when used in the first-line treatment of patients with high-risk disease. Historically, many regimens and treatments that have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed and refractory cHL have found their way into the first-line setting. This trend might also be true of the checkpoint inhibitors, which have been tested extensively in relapsed/refractory cHL. In AYA patients with cHL, the rationale for these treatments might not only include a poor predicted response to current regimens, but a reduced risk of late toxicities if long-term follow-up demonstrates these treatments reduce late complications, such as secondary malignancies, which are associated with standard strategies, particularly those that include radiotherapy.

If targeted therapies do preserve efficacy and reduce risk of late complications, strategies to individualize therapy will remain relevant. Many of the emerging targeted therapies involve challenging and costly treatment protocols that demand selective application. Efforts to develop simpler and more precise biomarkers might streamline this task. Of promising developments in this area, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) appears to be near routine clinical application. A small study of cfDNA conducted in 121 patients found that minimal residual disease assessment by repeat cfDNA sequencing predicted response and PFS when performed as early as a week after treatment initiation.²⁴ If larger studies confirm accuracy, this biomarker strategy might prove simpler and more convenient than PET imaging.

Summary

In the treatment of hematologic malignancies, cHL is widely regarded as a success story with high rates of extended survival among children, AYAs, and older adults. This level of success does not obviate the need for even more effective treatments, and also permits more attention to be directed to reducing the risk of late toxicities. For the AYA population, which represents a large group with cHL, the current directions of clinical research offer the promise of imminent changes in how the disease is controlled and a reduction in treatment-related late morbidity and mortality.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

Background

Hodgkin lymphoma occurs in fewer than 9,000 individuals in the United States each year,¹ but it is one of the most common types of cancer in AYAs.² For the purposes of cHL, AYA is typically defined as an age range of 18 to 39 years, which covers the first of 2 bimodal peaks in incidence but stops short of the second.^3,4 The first of these peaks occurs between the ages of 15 and 34 years, while the second begins at about age 55.⁵ Children younger than 15 years of age can also develop Hodgkin lymphoma, but it is less common.⁶

In AYAs and in adults, more than 90% of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma have cHL.⁷ Most AYAs present with the nodular sclerosis subtype, but cHL is managed differently in pediatric patients versus in adult centers.^8,9 Evidence suggests that the specific risks of common treatment protocols, although similar, are not the same in AYAs as in adults.^10,11 Even though the literature evaluating the presentation and management of AYA cHL has been growing since 2005, when the AYA Oncology Progress Review Group called for AYAs to be recognized
as a distinct group, clinical trials specific to AYA cHL remain limited.⁹

Major Hodgkin lymphoma guidelines only partially address AYAs as a distinct group. In guidelines issued by the National Cancer Institute, the differences in clinical presentation of AYAs are described for young children, AYAs, and older adults, but there are no treatment recommendations specific to AYAs.¹² Guidelines from the EuroNet Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma Group offer recommendations for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma, but do not differentiate between children and adolescents.¹³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) provides separate treatment recommendations for patients 18 years or younger and those who are older than 18.^14,15 For Hodgkin lymphoma, AYA is not addressed as a separate category even though the NCCN has provided general guidelines for treatment of malignancies in AYA.¹⁶

First-line therapies are effective in children, AYAs, and adults. Survival rates at 5 years have increased steadily, approaching or exceeding 90% across age groups even for patients with unfavorable risk characteristics.¹⁷ This success has permitted greater focus on developing strategies that preserve efficacy with lower acute and long-term risks.

Risk-Adapted Therapies

While the potential for new and novel therapies to reduce the risk of long-term toxicities continues to be explored, adjusting existing regimens to reduce these risks has proven to be a viable strategy. This adjustment is a standard of care in the pediatric setting based on results from such studies as German GPOH-HD 95, which suggested that doses of radiotherapy, a major contributor to late toxicities,¹⁸ can be omitted in patients with a complete response after chemotherapy.¹¹ This pediatric trial contained both younger children and adolescents, but subsequent secondary analyses looking specifically at AYAs in this and other trials have suggested that efficacy is similarly preserved with risk-adapted strategies.⁹

However, due to AYA patients with cHL being treated using both pediatric and adult approaches, the persistent debate about optimal therapies in this age group complicates the effort to define a well-accepted strategy for risk adjustment. While risk-adapted strategies that rely on interim positron emission tomography (PET) to calibrate treatment intensity are now being used routinely across age stratifications, other initiatives are creating additional opportunities to gauge the impact on late effects in AYAs. These include strategies to improve collaboration across groups of trialists and data generated by observational cohorts, which can evaluate late effects not captured in time-limited clinical trials.

Among recent data supporting risk-adjusted therapy, the toxicity outcomes from a multicenter trial of PET-guided intensive treatment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cHL were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.¹⁹ This phase 3 trial enrolled patients younger than 60 years, 79% of whom were younger than 45 years. Building on previous evidence that PET guidance improves the safety of eBEACOPP (escalated doses of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), nearly 1,500 patients were randomized to this strategy or to PET-guided BrECADD, a modified eBEACOPP in which the antibody conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) was substituted for bleomycin. For an adjudicated endpoint of treatment-related morbidity, the experimental BrECAAD regimen reduced the risk by nearly 30% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72). It is unclear whether this strategy will be used in the United States, where trials have been built on ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) rather than BEACOPP.

Efficacy data from this trial are not yet available, and these data will be important. There is concern that PET-directed therapy might result in lower toxicity at a cost of reduced rates of disease control. It is possible that the serious consequences of late toxicities—including infertility, compromised cardiovascular function, secondary cancers, and other organ damage—might need to be balanced against some loss of efficacy.

Novel Targeted Therapies

The goal of reducing late toxicities of cHL therapy in AYAs is also likely to be advanced by novel therapies. Research endeavors include a multicenter collaboration between US and Canadian investigators that is exploring the combination of nivolumab (a checkpoint inhibitor) plus BV.²⁰ The trial recently completed accrual and includes both adult and pediatric patients. If novel agents prove effective for improving efficacy while reducing the risk of late complications in AYAs, they are expected to have a profound effect on clinical practice.

Arguably, the era of targeted and novel therapies in cHL was initiated more than 10 years ago with the introduction of BV for the treatment of advanced disease in older adults.²¹ BV was moved into the front line for patients 18 years of age or older with advanced cHL in a trial that compared the standard of ABVD to the same drugs with BV substituted for bleomycin.²² In this study, the BV-containing regimen was associated with a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .04) and a lower rate of adverse events, including pulmonary toxicity (1% vs 3%) after 2 years of follow-up.

A similar study recently associated a BV-containing regimen with even greater efficacy in pediatric high-risk cHL.²³ In this multicenter study with 600 treatment-naïve patients ranging in age from 2 to 21 years, the standard pediatric regimen of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide was compared to the same regimen with BV substituted for bleomycin. With event-free survival as the primary endpoint, the experimental regimen was associated with a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of an adverse event or death (HR 0.41). However, no substantial differences were noted in toxicity after a follow-up of 42 months. It not yet clear whether the elimination of bleomycin will translate into less late toxicity, such as pulmonary or cardiovascular morbidity.

In the era of targeted therapies, the experience with BV has been a step toward more effective treatments using novel mechanisms of action to improve outcomes when used in the first-line treatment of patients with high-risk disease. Historically, many regimens and treatments that have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed and refractory cHL have found their way into the first-line setting. This trend might also be true of the checkpoint inhibitors, which have been tested extensively in relapsed/refractory cHL. In AYA patients with cHL, the rationale for these treatments might not only include a poor predicted response to current regimens, but a reduced risk of late toxicities if long-term follow-up demonstrates these treatments reduce late complications, such as secondary malignancies, which are associated with standard strategies, particularly those that include radiotherapy.

If targeted therapies do preserve efficacy and reduce risk of late complications, strategies to individualize therapy will remain relevant. Many of the emerging targeted therapies involve challenging and costly treatment protocols that demand selective application. Efforts to develop simpler and more precise biomarkers might streamline this task. Of promising developments in this area, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) appears to be near routine clinical application. A small study of cfDNA conducted in 121 patients found that minimal residual disease assessment by repeat cfDNA sequencing predicted response and PFS when performed as early as a week after treatment initiation.²⁴ If larger studies confirm accuracy, this biomarker strategy might prove simpler and more convenient than PET imaging.

Summary

In the treatment of hematologic malignancies, cHL is widely regarded as a success story with high rates of extended survival among children, AYAs, and older adults. This level of success does not obviate the need for even more effective treatments, and also permits more attention to be directed to reducing the risk of late toxicities. For the AYA population, which represents a large group with cHL, the current directions of clinical research offer the promise of imminent changes in how the disease is controlled and a reduction in treatment-related late morbidity and mortality.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

Background

Hodgkin lymphoma occurs in fewer than 9,000 individuals in the United States each year,¹ but it is one of the most common types of cancer in AYAs.² For the purposes of cHL, AYA is typically defined as an age range of 18 to 39 years, which covers the first of 2 bimodal peaks in incidence but stops short of the second.^3,4 The first of these peaks occurs between the ages of 15 and 34 years, while the second begins at about age 55.⁵ Children younger than 15 years of age can also develop Hodgkin lymphoma, but it is less common.⁶

In AYAs and in adults, more than 90% of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma have cHL.⁷ Most AYAs present with the nodular sclerosis subtype, but cHL is managed differently in pediatric patients versus in adult centers.^8,9 Evidence suggests that the specific risks of common treatment protocols, although similar, are not the same in AYAs as in adults.^10,11 Even though the literature evaluating the presentation and management of AYA cHL has been growing since 2005, when the AYA Oncology Progress Review Group called for AYAs to be recognized
as a distinct group, clinical trials specific to AYA cHL remain limited.⁹

Major Hodgkin lymphoma guidelines only partially address AYAs as a distinct group. In guidelines issued by the National Cancer Institute, the differences in clinical presentation of AYAs are described for young children, AYAs, and older adults, but there are no treatment recommendations specific to AYAs.¹² Guidelines from the EuroNet Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma Group offer recommendations for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma, but do not differentiate between children and adolescents.¹³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) provides separate treatment recommendations for patients 18 years or younger and those who are older than 18.^14,15 For Hodgkin lymphoma, AYA is not addressed as a separate category even though the NCCN has provided general guidelines for treatment of malignancies in AYA.¹⁶

First-line therapies are effective in children, AYAs, and adults. Survival rates at 5 years have increased steadily, approaching or exceeding 90% across age groups even for patients with unfavorable risk characteristics.¹⁷ This success has permitted greater focus on developing strategies that preserve efficacy with lower acute and long-term risks.

Risk-Adapted Therapies

While the potential for new and novel therapies to reduce the risk of long-term toxicities continues to be explored, adjusting existing regimens to reduce these risks has proven to be a viable strategy. This adjustment is a standard of care in the pediatric setting based on results from such studies as German GPOH-HD 95, which suggested that doses of radiotherapy, a major contributor to late toxicities,¹⁸ can be omitted in patients with a complete response after chemotherapy.¹¹ This pediatric trial contained both younger children and adolescents, but subsequent secondary analyses looking specifically at AYAs in this and other trials have suggested that efficacy is similarly preserved with risk-adapted strategies.⁹

However, due to AYA patients with cHL being treated using both pediatric and adult approaches, the persistent debate about optimal therapies in this age group complicates the effort to define a well-accepted strategy for risk adjustment. While risk-adapted strategies that rely on interim positron emission tomography (PET) to calibrate treatment intensity are now being used routinely across age stratifications, other initiatives are creating additional opportunities to gauge the impact on late effects in AYAs. These include strategies to improve collaboration across groups of trialists and data generated by observational cohorts, which can evaluate late effects not captured in time-limited clinical trials.

Among recent data supporting risk-adjusted therapy, the toxicity outcomes from a multicenter trial of PET-guided intensive treatment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cHL were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.¹⁹ This phase 3 trial enrolled patients younger than 60 years, 79% of whom were younger than 45 years. Building on previous evidence that PET guidance improves the safety of eBEACOPP (escalated doses of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), nearly 1,500 patients were randomized to this strategy or to PET-guided BrECADD, a modified eBEACOPP in which the antibody conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) was substituted for bleomycin. For an adjudicated endpoint of treatment-related morbidity, the experimental BrECAAD regimen reduced the risk by nearly 30% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72). It is unclear whether this strategy will be used in the United States, where trials have been built on ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) rather than BEACOPP.

Efficacy data from this trial are not yet available, and these data will be important. There is concern that PET-directed therapy might result in lower toxicity at a cost of reduced rates of disease control. It is possible that the serious consequences of late toxicities—including infertility, compromised cardiovascular function, secondary cancers, and other organ damage—might need to be balanced against some loss of efficacy.

Novel Targeted Therapies

The goal of reducing late toxicities of cHL therapy in AYAs is also likely to be advanced by novel therapies. Research endeavors include a multicenter collaboration between US and Canadian investigators that is exploring the combination of nivolumab (a checkpoint inhibitor) plus BV.²⁰ The trial recently completed accrual and includes both adult and pediatric patients. If novel agents prove effective for improving efficacy while reducing the risk of late complications in AYAs, they are expected to have a profound effect on clinical practice.

Arguably, the era of targeted and novel therapies in cHL was initiated more than 10 years ago with the introduction of BV for the treatment of advanced disease in older adults.²¹ BV was moved into the front line for patients 18 years of age or older with advanced cHL in a trial that compared the standard of ABVD to the same drugs with BV substituted for bleomycin.²² In this study, the BV-containing regimen was associated with a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .04) and a lower rate of adverse events, including pulmonary toxicity (1% vs 3%) after 2 years of follow-up.

A similar study recently associated a BV-containing regimen with even greater efficacy in pediatric high-risk cHL.²³ In this multicenter study with 600 treatment-naïve patients ranging in age from 2 to 21 years, the standard pediatric regimen of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide was compared to the same regimen with BV substituted for bleomycin. With event-free survival as the primary endpoint, the experimental regimen was associated with a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of an adverse event or death (HR 0.41). However, no substantial differences were noted in toxicity after a follow-up of 42 months. It not yet clear whether the elimination of bleomycin will translate into less late toxicity, such as pulmonary or cardiovascular morbidity.

In the era of targeted therapies, the experience with BV has been a step toward more effective treatments using novel mechanisms of action to improve outcomes when used in the first-line treatment of patients with high-risk disease. Historically, many regimens and treatments that have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed and refractory cHL have found their way into the first-line setting. This trend might also be true of the checkpoint inhibitors, which have been tested extensively in relapsed/refractory cHL. In AYA patients with cHL, the rationale for these treatments might not only include a poor predicted response to current regimens, but a reduced risk of late toxicities if long-term follow-up demonstrates these treatments reduce late complications, such as secondary malignancies, which are associated with standard strategies, particularly those that include radiotherapy.

If targeted therapies do preserve efficacy and reduce risk of late complications, strategies to individualize therapy will remain relevant. Many of the emerging targeted therapies involve challenging and costly treatment protocols that demand selective application. Efforts to develop simpler and more precise biomarkers might streamline this task. Of promising developments in this area, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) appears to be near routine clinical application. A small study of cfDNA conducted in 121 patients found that minimal residual disease assessment by repeat cfDNA sequencing predicted response and PFS when performed as early as a week after treatment initiation.²⁴ If larger studies confirm accuracy, this biomarker strategy might prove simpler and more convenient than PET imaging.

Summary

In the treatment of hematologic malignancies, cHL is widely regarded as a success story with high rates of extended survival among children, AYAs, and older adults. This level of success does not obviate the need for even more effective treatments, and also permits more attention to be directed to reducing the risk of late toxicities. For the AYA population, which represents a large group with cHL, the current directions of clinical research offer the promise of imminent changes in how the disease is controlled and a reduction in treatment-related late morbidity and mortality.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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