Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Three over-the-counter antihistamines, clemastine, desloratadine, and loratadine, preferentially induce cell death through lysosomal membrane permeabilization in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells, compared with normal lymphocytes, according to the results of an in vitro study published in Leukemia Research.

In addition, the antihistamines showed a synergistic effect in killing off chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells when combined with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ibrutinib, but not with chemotherapy, according to Aaron Chanas-Larue of CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., and colleagues.

Blood from CLL patients and age-matched healthy donors was collected, treated, and compared with two malignant B-cell lines. Cells were treated with the three different antihistamines at various concentrations alone and in the presence of ibrutinib. Cell death was determined by flow cytometry using fluorescent staining and EC50 (half-maximal effective concentration) values were calculated.

Of the three drugs, clemastine demonstrated the greatest degree of cytotoxicity, with a mean EC50 value of 12.3 mcmol in CLL cells. Desloratadine and loratadine also had a greater effect on leukemic cells, with mean EC50 values of 27.2 mcmol and 17.2 mcmol, respectively, according to the researchers.

Clemastine also showed the greatest tumor sensitivity, with an EC50 nearly three times lower for CLL cells (EC50, 12.3 mcmol) than for normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells (EC50, 32 mcmol). In addition, clemastine induced cell death over a 72-hour time course in CLL cells, and was equally effective against CLL cells with del17p, unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene, or high Zeta-chain–associated protein kinase 70 expression.
 

Effective synergy

The researchers found that clemastine enhanced cell death when combined with targeted CLL therapies ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, but did not enhance the activities of the chemotherapeutics fludarabine, chlorambucil, or bendamustine.

Ibrutinib increased cell death to the greatest degree when combined with antihistamines. The effect was demonstrated to be synergistic, showing “a unique interaction between the activities of the antihistamines and this inhibitor of the B-cell pathway, suggesting a clinical potential for this combination,” the authors stated.

“Repurposing well-characterized drugs such as antihistamines with defined mechanisms and toxicities allows for repositioning of these drugs to use in CLL treatment in the near future in the context of targeted therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the Cancer Research Society and the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chanas-Larue A et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106423.

Three over-the-counter antihistamines, clemastine, desloratadine, and loratadine, preferentially induce cell death through lysosomal membrane permeabilization in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells, compared with normal lymphocytes, according to the results of an in vitro study published in Leukemia Research.

In addition, the antihistamines showed a synergistic effect in killing off chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells when combined with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ibrutinib, but not with chemotherapy, according to Aaron Chanas-Larue of CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., and colleagues.

Blood from CLL patients and age-matched healthy donors was collected, treated, and compared with two malignant B-cell lines. Cells were treated with the three different antihistamines at various concentrations alone and in the presence of ibrutinib. Cell death was determined by flow cytometry using fluorescent staining and EC50 (half-maximal effective concentration) values were calculated.

Of the three drugs, clemastine demonstrated the greatest degree of cytotoxicity, with a mean EC50 value of 12.3 mcmol in CLL cells. Desloratadine and loratadine also had a greater effect on leukemic cells, with mean EC50 values of 27.2 mcmol and 17.2 mcmol, respectively, according to the researchers.

Clemastine also showed the greatest tumor sensitivity, with an EC50 nearly three times lower for CLL cells (EC50, 12.3 mcmol) than for normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells (EC50, 32 mcmol). In addition, clemastine induced cell death over a 72-hour time course in CLL cells, and was equally effective against CLL cells with del17p, unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene, or high Zeta-chain–associated protein kinase 70 expression.
 

Effective synergy

The researchers found that clemastine enhanced cell death when combined with targeted CLL therapies ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, but did not enhance the activities of the chemotherapeutics fludarabine, chlorambucil, or bendamustine.

Ibrutinib increased cell death to the greatest degree when combined with antihistamines. The effect was demonstrated to be synergistic, showing “a unique interaction between the activities of the antihistamines and this inhibitor of the B-cell pathway, suggesting a clinical potential for this combination,” the authors stated.

“Repurposing well-characterized drugs such as antihistamines with defined mechanisms and toxicities allows for repositioning of these drugs to use in CLL treatment in the near future in the context of targeted therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the Cancer Research Society and the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chanas-Larue A et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106423.

Three over-the-counter antihistamines, clemastine, desloratadine, and loratadine, preferentially induce cell death through lysosomal membrane permeabilization in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells, compared with normal lymphocytes, according to the results of an in vitro study published in Leukemia Research.

In addition, the antihistamines showed a synergistic effect in killing off chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells when combined with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ibrutinib, but not with chemotherapy, according to Aaron Chanas-Larue of CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., and colleagues.

Blood from CLL patients and age-matched healthy donors was collected, treated, and compared with two malignant B-cell lines. Cells were treated with the three different antihistamines at various concentrations alone and in the presence of ibrutinib. Cell death was determined by flow cytometry using fluorescent staining and EC50 (half-maximal effective concentration) values were calculated.

Of the three drugs, clemastine demonstrated the greatest degree of cytotoxicity, with a mean EC50 value of 12.3 mcmol in CLL cells. Desloratadine and loratadine also had a greater effect on leukemic cells, with mean EC50 values of 27.2 mcmol and 17.2 mcmol, respectively, according to the researchers.

Clemastine also showed the greatest tumor sensitivity, with an EC50 nearly three times lower for CLL cells (EC50, 12.3 mcmol) than for normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells (EC50, 32 mcmol). In addition, clemastine induced cell death over a 72-hour time course in CLL cells, and was equally effective against CLL cells with del17p, unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene, or high Zeta-chain–associated protein kinase 70 expression.
 

Effective synergy

The researchers found that clemastine enhanced cell death when combined with targeted CLL therapies ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, but did not enhance the activities of the chemotherapeutics fludarabine, chlorambucil, or bendamustine.

Ibrutinib increased cell death to the greatest degree when combined with antihistamines. The effect was demonstrated to be synergistic, showing “a unique interaction between the activities of the antihistamines and this inhibitor of the B-cell pathway, suggesting a clinical potential for this combination,” the authors stated.

“Repurposing well-characterized drugs such as antihistamines with defined mechanisms and toxicities allows for repositioning of these drugs to use in CLL treatment in the near future in the context of targeted therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the Cancer Research Society and the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chanas-Larue A et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106423.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID testing and cancer treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation and implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID testing and cancer treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation and implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID testing and cancer treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation and implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

The BALL score was able to identify a subset of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib therapy, according to the results of a study of 111 patients followed from two different institutions.

The BALL model consists of four factors: serum beta₂-microglobulin at 5 mg/dL or greater, hemoglobin < 110 g/L for women or < 120 g/L for men, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [UNL], and time elapsed from last therapy less than 24 months. Each parameter was alloted 1 point, leading to a stratification of patients into three different prognostic groups: low risk (score 0-1), intermediate risk (2-3), and high risk (score 4), according to a report published online in Leukemia Research.

According to Stefano Molica, MD, of the Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese-Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy, and his colleagues, the majority of patients (82%) were clinical Rai stage II-IV. The median patient age was 63 years and nearly 68% were men.

The researchers assessed four models for predicting overall survival. The modified version of CLL-International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) failed to provide prognostic information in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL (P = .77) as did the Ahn et al. model (P = .95) and a simplified BALL model (P = .09). In contrast, the full BALL score captured two groups of patients with significant differences in survival (hazard ratio, 0.240; 95 % confidence interval, 0.10-0.54; P = .0005); however, because of the low number of patients in the high-risk category, these cases were combined with the intermediate-risk group.

The BALL score identified a subset of patients, accounting for about 50% of the whole population, who particularly benefit from single-agent ibrutinib, according to Dr. Molica and his colleagues. These patients had a survival rate of 85% at 3 years.

“In contrast, the outcome of subjects with intermediate-high risk is disappointing. These patients should be considered for a combination of targeted drugs or cellular-based therapies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Molica S et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Jun 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2020.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

Targeted prophylaxis with posaconazole was more effective than fluconazole in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were undergoing induction chemotherapy in order to prevent invasive fungal infection, according to a study by Tian Zhang of Xidian University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 155 patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, comparing invasive fungal infections in those who received no prophylaxis (60 patients), posaconazole prophylaxis (70), or fluconazole prophylaxis (55) during induction therapy, according to a report published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Proven and probable invasive fungal infections occurred during the induction phase in 45% in the no-prophylaxis group, in 18% of the posaconazole group and in 72% of the fluconazole group. Posaconazole prophylaxis reduced the odds of invasive fungal infections by greater than 60%, prolonged infection-free survival significantly, and did not increase the risk of hepatotoxicity.

In addition, the researchers found that the combination of age at diagnosis, clinically documented bacterial infection in the first 15 days of induction therapy, and absolute neutrophil count curve enabled significant prediction of the susceptibility to infections after receiving posaconazole prophylaxis.

“In general, these findings may serve as a basis for developing screening protocols to identify children who are at high risk for infection despite posaconazole prophylaxis so that early intervention can be initiated to mitigate fungal infections,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang T et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.07.008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.