User login
Perspective from the heartland: Cancer care and research during a public health crisis
I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.
Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).
Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
Making tough treatment decisions
Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”
The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.
In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.
The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.
Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
See one, do one, teach one
Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.
We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”
The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.
Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.
Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.
To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery
It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.
What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).
However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.
Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
What happens to cancer trials?
From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.
Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).
CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.
Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.
Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.
Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.
Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.
Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).
Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
Making tough treatment decisions
Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”
The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.
In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.
The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.
Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
See one, do one, teach one
Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.
We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”
The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.
Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.
Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.
To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery
It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.
What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).
However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.
Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
What happens to cancer trials?
From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.
Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).
CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.
Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.
Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.
Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.
Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.
Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).
Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
Making tough treatment decisions
Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”
The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.
In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.
The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.
Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
See one, do one, teach one
Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.
We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”
The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.
Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.
Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.
To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery
It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.
What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).
However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.
Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
What happens to cancer trials?
From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.
Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).
CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.
Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.
Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.
Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.
Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Cancer care and COVID-19 in Seattle, the first U.S. epicenter
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
How is oncology adapting to COVID-19?
As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?
Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.
Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.
Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?
Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.
Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.
Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.
Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?
David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.
Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.
Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.
Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.
Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?
Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.
Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.
Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?
Weber: Not yet.
Dizon: No, not at the moment.
Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?
Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.
Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.
Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?
Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.
Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.
Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).
Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.
Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?
Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.
Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.
Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?
Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.
Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.
Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.
Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?
David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.
Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.
Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.
Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.
Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?
Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.
Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.
Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?
Weber: Not yet.
Dizon: No, not at the moment.
Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?
Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.
Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.
Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?
Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.
Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.
Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).
Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.
Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the coronavirus pandemic escalates in the United States, Medscape Oncology reached out to a group of our contributors and asked them to provide their perspective on how their oncology departments and centers are preparing. Here are their responses to a number of issues facing oncologists in the US and around the world.
Have you shifted nonurgent follow-up visits to telemedicine, either via video or phone?
Kathy Miller, MD, Associate Director of Indiana University Simon Cancer Center: We are reviewing our clinic schedules and identifying “routine” follow-up patients who can be rescheduled. When patients are contacted to reschedule, they are asked if they have any urgent, immediate concerns that need to be addressed before the new appointment. If yes, they are offered a virtual visit.
Don Dizon, MD, Director of Women’s Cancers, Lifespan Cancer Institute; Director of Medical Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital: We have started to do this in preparation for a surge of people with COVID-19. Patients who are in long-term follow-up (no evidence of disease at 3 years or longer, being seen annually) or those in routine surveillance after curative treatment (that is, seen every 3 months) as well as those being seen for supportive care–type visits, like sexual health or survivorship, are all being contacted and visits are being moved to telehealth.
Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, Deputy Director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center: Yes. Any follow-up, nontreatment visits are done by phone or video if the patient agrees. (They all have).
Have you delayed or canceled cancer surgeries?
Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, Medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center: The University of Pennsylvania has taken this seriously. We’ve canceled all elective surgeries, have ramped up our telemedicine (video and phone) capabilities significantly, are limiting our appointments mostly to on-treatment visits, and have been asked to reconsider regular scans and reviews.
Dizon: We have not done this. There are apparently differences in interpretation in what institutions might mean as “elective surgeries.” At our institution, surgery for invasive malignancies is not elective. However, this may (or will) change if resources become an issue.
Lidia Schapira, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Survivorship at the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute: Delaying elective surgery is something that hospitals here have already implemented, and I imagine that this trend will spread. But it may be difficult to decide in situations that are not exactly “life-saving” but where an earlier intervention could preserve function or improve quality of life.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, Director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah: Cancer surgeries have not been deemed elective or delayed.
Have you delayed or altered the delivery of potentially immune-comprising treatments?
David Kerr, MD, Professor of Cancer Medicine at the University of Oxford in England: We are considering delaying initiation of our adjuvant colorectal cancer treatments, as we have data from our own QUASAR trials suggesting that patients who commence chemotherapy between 2 and 6 weeks do equally as well as those who begin 6-12 weeks after surgery.
Parikh: I personally haven’t delayed giving chemotherapy to avoid immune compromise, but I believe some others may have. It’s a delicate balance between wanting to ensure cancer control and making sure we are flattening the curve. As an example, though, I delayed three on-treatment visits for my clinic last Monday, and I converted 70% of my visits to telemedicine. However, I’m a genitourinary cancer specialist and the treatments I give are very different from others.
Lewis: The most difficult calculus is around adjuvant therapy. For metastatic patients, I am trying to use the least immunosuppressive regimen possible that will still control their disease. As you can imagine, it’s an assessment of competing risks.
Schapira: Patients who need essential anticancer therapy should still get it, but attempts to deintensify therapy should continue—for example, holding or postponing treatment without harm (based on evidence, not opinion). This may be possible for patients considering hormonal therapies for breast or prostate cancer.
Patients who need radiation should discuss the timing with their radiation oncologist. In some cases, it may be possible to delay treatment without affecting outcomes, but these decisions should be made carefully. Alternatively, shorter courses of radiation may be appropriate.
Have you advised your own patients differently given the high risk to cancer patients?
Kerr: We have factored potential infection with the virus into discussions where the benefits of chemotherapy are very marginal. This could tip the balance toward the patient deciding not to pursue chemotherapy.
Dizon: The data from China are not entirely crystal-clear. While they noted that people with active cancer and those who had a history of cancer are at increased risk for more severe infections and worse outcomes, the Chinese cohort was small, and compared with people without cancer, it tended to be much older and to be smokers (former or current). Having said this, we are counseling everyone about the importance of social distancing, washing hands, and not touching your face.
Lewis: If I have a complete blood count with a differential that includes lymphocytes, I can advise my lymphopenic patients (who are particularly vulnerable to viral infection) to take special precautions regarding social distancing in their own families.
Have any of your hospitalized patients been affected by policy changes to prepare beds/departments for the expected increase in COVID-19–positive patients?
Weber: Not yet.
Dizon: No, not at the moment.
Have you been asked to assist with other services or COVID-19 task forces?
Dizon: I am keenly involved in the preparations and modifications to procedures, including staffing decisions in outpatient, movement to telehealth, and work-from-home policies.
Lewis: I am engaged in system-wide COVID-19 efforts around oncology.
Kerr: Perhaps oddest of all, I am learning with some of our junior doctors to care for ventilated patients. I still consider myself enough of a general physician that I would hope to be able to contribute to the truly sick, but I accept that I do need an appropriate refresher course.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute: Queen’s Hospital medical students are now volunteering to help with daycare, groceries, and other tasks for staff who are working in the hospital.
Are you experiencing any shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) at your center?
Miller: Some supplies are running short, though none are frankly out at this point. However, rationing and controls are in place to stretch the supplies as far as possible, including reusing some PPE.
Dizon: We are rationing face masks and N95 respirators, eye shields, and even surgical scrubs. We are talking about postponing elective surgery to save PPE but are not yet to that point. We’re asking that face masks be reused for at least 2 days, maybe longer. PPEs are one per day. Scrubs are kept secure.
Lewis: We are being very careful not to overuse PPE but currently have an adequate inventory. We have had to move gloves and masks to areas where they are not accessible to the general public, as otherwise they were being stolen (this started weeks ago).
Kerr: Our National Health System has an adequate supply of PPE equipment centrally, but there seems to be a problem with distribution, as some hospitals are reporting shortages.
Weber: Masks are in short supply, so they are being used for several days if not wet. We are short of plastic gowns and are using paper chemo gowns. Similar story at many places.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Disruptions in cancer care in the era of COVID-19
Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.
“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”
Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.
“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.
“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.
The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.
“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.
“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.
Postpone Routine Screening
One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.
“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”
But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.
Guidance From ASCO
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.
First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.
ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.
However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.
Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.
Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:
- For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
- Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
- Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
- If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
- Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
- In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.
Delay Stem Cell Transplants
For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.
Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?
The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.
“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”
Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.
“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.
“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.
The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.
“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.
“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.
Postpone Routine Screening
One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.
“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”
But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.
Guidance From ASCO
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.
First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.
ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.
However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.
Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.
Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:
- For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
- Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
- Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
- If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
- Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
- In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.
Delay Stem Cell Transplants
For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.
Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?
The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.
“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”
Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.
“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.
“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.
The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.
“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.
“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.
Postpone Routine Screening
One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.
“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”
But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.
Guidance From ASCO
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.
First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.
ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.
However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.
Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.
Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:
- For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
- Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
- Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
- If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
- Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
- In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.
Delay Stem Cell Transplants
For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.
Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?
The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Largest meeting on cancer research canceled: AACR
The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.
The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.
There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.
This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”
The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”
Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:
- European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
- Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”
Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.
“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.
The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.
There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.
This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”
The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”
Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:
- European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
- Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”
Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.
“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.
The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.
There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.
This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”
The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”
Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:
- European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
- Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”
Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.
“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial FLAG-Ida outperforms 7+3 for high-risk AML
A treatment commonly used as a salvage regimen for relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) showed better results than did standard treatment when used as initial induction therapy.
Researchers found that the use of fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (FLAG) – with or without idarubicin (Ida) – resulted in higher remission rates for nonfavorable risk AML patients after one course of induction, compared with standard 7+3 (anthracycline plus cytarabine) treatment.
The use of FLAG+/-Ida also resulted in a shorter time to complete remission (CR) and a shorter time to transplant, compared with 7+3. Additionally, postremission overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were better after achieving CR from FLAG-Ida, compared with 7+3, Melhem Solh, MD, of the Blood & Marrow Transplant Program at Northside Hospital, Atlanta, and colleagues reported in Leukemia Research.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 304 consecutive AML patients, with nonfavorable National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk who received initial treatment at their center with either 7+3 (86 patients) or FLAG+/-Ida (218 patients). They found that patients in the FLAG+/-Ida group were more likely to achieve remission after one course of induction (74% vs. 62%; P less than .001) and had a faster time to achieve CR (30 days vs. 37.5 days; P less than .001), compared with patients receiving 7+3.
The time from diagnosis to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was shorter among CR patients after FLAG+/-Ida, compared with 7+3 (115 days vs. 151 days; P less than .003).
Additionally, the 3-year postremission OS and DFS were significantly better for patients receiving FLAG-Ida at 54% and 49%, compared with 39% and 32% for 7+3, respectively (P = .01).
Dr. Solh and colleagues found that the factors associated with postremission survival included age at first CR, NCCN risk, induction regimen (FLAG+/-Ida vs. 7+3; hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .01), and receipt of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.
“FLAG-Ida is a more efficacious regimen when used for initial induction compared to 3+7. It appears to produce better survival and improved postremission survival for AML patients with intermediate and poor risk AML without increasing toxicity,” Dr. Solh and colleagues wrote. “Further validation of these results in a well-designed randomized prospective trial will help define the best induction approaches for AML.”
There was no outside funding for this research and the authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Solh MM et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106318.
A treatment commonly used as a salvage regimen for relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) showed better results than did standard treatment when used as initial induction therapy.
Researchers found that the use of fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (FLAG) – with or without idarubicin (Ida) – resulted in higher remission rates for nonfavorable risk AML patients after one course of induction, compared with standard 7+3 (anthracycline plus cytarabine) treatment.
The use of FLAG+/-Ida also resulted in a shorter time to complete remission (CR) and a shorter time to transplant, compared with 7+3. Additionally, postremission overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were better after achieving CR from FLAG-Ida, compared with 7+3, Melhem Solh, MD, of the Blood & Marrow Transplant Program at Northside Hospital, Atlanta, and colleagues reported in Leukemia Research.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 304 consecutive AML patients, with nonfavorable National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk who received initial treatment at their center with either 7+3 (86 patients) or FLAG+/-Ida (218 patients). They found that patients in the FLAG+/-Ida group were more likely to achieve remission after one course of induction (74% vs. 62%; P less than .001) and had a faster time to achieve CR (30 days vs. 37.5 days; P less than .001), compared with patients receiving 7+3.
The time from diagnosis to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was shorter among CR patients after FLAG+/-Ida, compared with 7+3 (115 days vs. 151 days; P less than .003).
Additionally, the 3-year postremission OS and DFS were significantly better for patients receiving FLAG-Ida at 54% and 49%, compared with 39% and 32% for 7+3, respectively (P = .01).
Dr. Solh and colleagues found that the factors associated with postremission survival included age at first CR, NCCN risk, induction regimen (FLAG+/-Ida vs. 7+3; hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .01), and receipt of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.
“FLAG-Ida is a more efficacious regimen when used for initial induction compared to 3+7. It appears to produce better survival and improved postremission survival for AML patients with intermediate and poor risk AML without increasing toxicity,” Dr. Solh and colleagues wrote. “Further validation of these results in a well-designed randomized prospective trial will help define the best induction approaches for AML.”
There was no outside funding for this research and the authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Solh MM et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106318.
A treatment commonly used as a salvage regimen for relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) showed better results than did standard treatment when used as initial induction therapy.
Researchers found that the use of fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (FLAG) – with or without idarubicin (Ida) – resulted in higher remission rates for nonfavorable risk AML patients after one course of induction, compared with standard 7+3 (anthracycline plus cytarabine) treatment.
The use of FLAG+/-Ida also resulted in a shorter time to complete remission (CR) and a shorter time to transplant, compared with 7+3. Additionally, postremission overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were better after achieving CR from FLAG-Ida, compared with 7+3, Melhem Solh, MD, of the Blood & Marrow Transplant Program at Northside Hospital, Atlanta, and colleagues reported in Leukemia Research.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 304 consecutive AML patients, with nonfavorable National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk who received initial treatment at their center with either 7+3 (86 patients) or FLAG+/-Ida (218 patients). They found that patients in the FLAG+/-Ida group were more likely to achieve remission after one course of induction (74% vs. 62%; P less than .001) and had a faster time to achieve CR (30 days vs. 37.5 days; P less than .001), compared with patients receiving 7+3.
The time from diagnosis to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was shorter among CR patients after FLAG+/-Ida, compared with 7+3 (115 days vs. 151 days; P less than .003).
Additionally, the 3-year postremission OS and DFS were significantly better for patients receiving FLAG-Ida at 54% and 49%, compared with 39% and 32% for 7+3, respectively (P = .01).
Dr. Solh and colleagues found that the factors associated with postremission survival included age at first CR, NCCN risk, induction regimen (FLAG+/-Ida vs. 7+3; hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .01), and receipt of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.
“FLAG-Ida is a more efficacious regimen when used for initial induction compared to 3+7. It appears to produce better survival and improved postremission survival for AML patients with intermediate and poor risk AML without increasing toxicity,” Dr. Solh and colleagues wrote. “Further validation of these results in a well-designed randomized prospective trial will help define the best induction approaches for AML.”
There was no outside funding for this research and the authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Solh MM et al. Leuk Res. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106318.
FROM LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Late effects in young cancer survivors underscore importance of high-risk screening
according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.
At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.
Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.
The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.
For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).
These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”
In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”
Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.
This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.
SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.
according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.
At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.
Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.
The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.
For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).
These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”
In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”
Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.
This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.
SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.
according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.
At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.
Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.
The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.
For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).
These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”
In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”
Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.
This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.
SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
Glaring gap in CV event reporting in pivotal cancer trials
Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.
Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).
“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.
The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.
“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
Lower Rate of Reported Events
The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.
Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.
To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.
Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).
There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
No malicious intent
“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”
“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”
Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.
“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”
Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.
The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.
“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.
“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
One size does not fit all
Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.
“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”
His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.
The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.
Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.
“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”
Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.
In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.
“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”
In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.
“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.
Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).
“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.
The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.
“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
Lower Rate of Reported Events
The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.
Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.
To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.
Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).
There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
No malicious intent
“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”
“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”
Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.
“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”
Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.
The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.
“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.
“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
One size does not fit all
Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.
“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”
His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.
The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.
Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.
“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”
Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.
In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.
“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”
In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.
“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.
Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).
“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.
The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.
“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
Lower Rate of Reported Events
The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.
Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.
To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.
Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).
There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
No malicious intent
“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”
“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”
Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.
“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”
Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.
The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.
“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.
“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
One size does not fit all
Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.
“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”
His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.
The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.
Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.
“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”
Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.
In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.
“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”
In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.
“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Phase 2 data: Inotuzumab, approved in adults with B-ALL, shows promise in kids, too
ORLANDO – Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a CD22-targeted antibody approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL), showed promising safety and efficacy in children and young adults with R/R B-ALL in a phase 2 trial.
Of 48 patients aged 1-21 years enrolled in the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Protocol AALL1621 and evaluable for response and toxicity after treatment with the approved adult InO dose, 19 achieved a complete response (CR) and 9 achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery (CRi) after the first treatment cycle, for an overall CR/CRi rate of 58.3%, Maureen M. O’Brien, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Of those with CR/CRi, 19 (65.5%) achieved minimal residual disease less than 0.01%, said Dr. O’Brien, a pediatric hematologist and medical director of the Leukemia/Lymphoma Program at the Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Three patients had a partial response (PR), nine had stable disease (SD), and eight had progressive disease (PD), and one of each with PR and SD achieved CR/CRi after a second treatment cycle.
“Of note, two patients who were characterized as [having] progressive disease actually had marrow complete response with incomplete count recovery, but had progressive CNS disease,” she said.
Patients included in the single-arm trial had CD22-positive B-ALL, defined as B-ALL with greater than 20% of blasts expressing CD22, and were in at least their second relapse, were refractory to two prior induction regimens, or had a relapse after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). One exception was that patients with Down syndrome were allowed inclusion after a first relapse, she noted.
Median patient age was 9 years, four patients had CNS 3 status, three had Down syndrome, and most were heavily pretreated, with 32 in at least their second relapse.
“Most patients had significant marrow disease burden, with a median marrow blast percentage of 81%,” Dr. O’Brien said. “In terms of prior therapy, 23% had prior transplant, 23% had prior CD19 [chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)] T-cell therapy – including two patients with prior CD22 CAR T, and 29% of patients had received prior blinatumomab.”
All patients received one cycle of InO at a dose of 1.8mg/m2, with .8mg/m2 given on day 1 and 0.5mg/m2 given on days 8 and 15. Intrathecal therapy was determined based on CNS status.
Patients with at least stable disease at day 28 were eligible for a second cycle; those with CR or CRi received InO at a dose of 0.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 2, and those without CR/CRi received the same fractionated dose as in cycle 1. Patients with CR/CRi after two cycles were eligible for up to six total cycles at investigator discretion, Dr. O’Brien explained, adding that 26 of 40 patients eligible for cycle 2 proceeded, including 13 of 18 with MRD less than .01%, 6 of 10 with MRD of 0.01% or greater, and 7 of 12 with PR/SD.
After cycle 2, all 13 with MRD less than .01% maintained that MRD level, 3 of 6 with MRD of .01% or greater achieved MRD less than .01%, 2 of 7 with PR/SD achieved CRi with MRD of .01% or greater – and one of those 2 was MRD negative after a third cycle.
Seven patients received three or more cycles.
“Therapy was extremely well tolerated,” Dr. O’Brien said, noting that the most common nonhematological grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in cycle 1 were febrile neutropenia and infection, occurring in 27.1% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. “But toxicity was quite minimal.”
Hepatic toxicity included four cases of grade 3 alanine transaminase and one grade 3 bilirubin toxicity in cycle 1, and one grade 3 ALT in cycle 2.
“Importantly, there were no inotuzumab dose modifications or delays due to hepatic toxicity,” she said.
Nine patients experienced 11 dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including 7 involving prolonged count recovery beyond day 42, which was not attributable to disease, and 4 nonhematologic events, including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory distress, and a postintrathecal methotrexate stroke.
Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) developed in 5 of the 48 patients, all in patients who underwent transplant after InO treatment. Only one of the five had undergone a prior transplant. All SOS cases were grade 3 and were treated with defibrotide; four cases resolved quickly, and one was resolving at the time of death from other causes, she said.
“We found no evidence of association with age, conditioning regimen, SOS prophylaxis, cumulative InO exposure, or time from InO to transplant, bearing in mind that it is a small number of cases, so analysis is limited,” she added.
Central CD22 evaluation in 27 patients with pre– and post–cycle 1 samples showed that 11 of those patients had residual disease at the end of cycle 1.
“There is clearly a subset of patients for whom the resistance mechanism does not seem to have any bearing on CD22, as it was still highly expressed at the time of relapse, but there are a significant number of patients who have downregulation of CD22 expression or a subset of blasts that were CD22 negative at the time of relapse,” she said. “Notably, two of three patients with baseline partial CD22 expression – so less than 90% ... did not achieve a morphologic complete response, and both of these patients had KMT2A rearrangements.”
The findings are important, because 10%-20% of children and young adults with B-ALL will relapse, and therapies that can bridge patients to HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy are critical for improving outcomes, Dr. O’Brien said, explaining that InO, a humanized CD22 IgG4 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in adults based on “the impressive results from the INNOVATE trial, compared with chemotherapy,” but prospective data on its efficacy and safety in pediatric patients are lacking.
Retrospective data from a compassionate use program in children demonstrated a response rate of 67% in a heavily pretreated population, and phase 1 data from the ITCC-059 trial presented in a poster at the ASH meeting also showed “quite impressive results,” but a major concern has been hepatic toxicity, including SOS, she said.
Given the observed safety and efficacy in the current phase 2 trial, investigation in children will continue, she said, explaining that “COG is now undertaking a phase 3 trial – AALL1732 – which will randomize patients to chemotherapy [with or without] inotuzumab for patients aged 1-25 with newly diagnosed high-risk B-ALL.”
COG AALL1621 was funded by NCTN grants, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and Pfizer. Dr. O’Brien reported research funding from Pfizer, Celgene, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and BTG.
SOURCE: O’Brien M et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 741.
ORLANDO – Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a CD22-targeted antibody approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL), showed promising safety and efficacy in children and young adults with R/R B-ALL in a phase 2 trial.
Of 48 patients aged 1-21 years enrolled in the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Protocol AALL1621 and evaluable for response and toxicity after treatment with the approved adult InO dose, 19 achieved a complete response (CR) and 9 achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery (CRi) after the first treatment cycle, for an overall CR/CRi rate of 58.3%, Maureen M. O’Brien, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Of those with CR/CRi, 19 (65.5%) achieved minimal residual disease less than 0.01%, said Dr. O’Brien, a pediatric hematologist and medical director of the Leukemia/Lymphoma Program at the Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Three patients had a partial response (PR), nine had stable disease (SD), and eight had progressive disease (PD), and one of each with PR and SD achieved CR/CRi after a second treatment cycle.
“Of note, two patients who were characterized as [having] progressive disease actually had marrow complete response with incomplete count recovery, but had progressive CNS disease,” she said.
Patients included in the single-arm trial had CD22-positive B-ALL, defined as B-ALL with greater than 20% of blasts expressing CD22, and were in at least their second relapse, were refractory to two prior induction regimens, or had a relapse after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). One exception was that patients with Down syndrome were allowed inclusion after a first relapse, she noted.
Median patient age was 9 years, four patients had CNS 3 status, three had Down syndrome, and most were heavily pretreated, with 32 in at least their second relapse.
“Most patients had significant marrow disease burden, with a median marrow blast percentage of 81%,” Dr. O’Brien said. “In terms of prior therapy, 23% had prior transplant, 23% had prior CD19 [chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)] T-cell therapy – including two patients with prior CD22 CAR T, and 29% of patients had received prior blinatumomab.”
All patients received one cycle of InO at a dose of 1.8mg/m2, with .8mg/m2 given on day 1 and 0.5mg/m2 given on days 8 and 15. Intrathecal therapy was determined based on CNS status.
Patients with at least stable disease at day 28 were eligible for a second cycle; those with CR or CRi received InO at a dose of 0.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 2, and those without CR/CRi received the same fractionated dose as in cycle 1. Patients with CR/CRi after two cycles were eligible for up to six total cycles at investigator discretion, Dr. O’Brien explained, adding that 26 of 40 patients eligible for cycle 2 proceeded, including 13 of 18 with MRD less than .01%, 6 of 10 with MRD of 0.01% or greater, and 7 of 12 with PR/SD.
After cycle 2, all 13 with MRD less than .01% maintained that MRD level, 3 of 6 with MRD of .01% or greater achieved MRD less than .01%, 2 of 7 with PR/SD achieved CRi with MRD of .01% or greater – and one of those 2 was MRD negative after a third cycle.
Seven patients received three or more cycles.
“Therapy was extremely well tolerated,” Dr. O’Brien said, noting that the most common nonhematological grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in cycle 1 were febrile neutropenia and infection, occurring in 27.1% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. “But toxicity was quite minimal.”
Hepatic toxicity included four cases of grade 3 alanine transaminase and one grade 3 bilirubin toxicity in cycle 1, and one grade 3 ALT in cycle 2.
“Importantly, there were no inotuzumab dose modifications or delays due to hepatic toxicity,” she said.
Nine patients experienced 11 dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including 7 involving prolonged count recovery beyond day 42, which was not attributable to disease, and 4 nonhematologic events, including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory distress, and a postintrathecal methotrexate stroke.
Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) developed in 5 of the 48 patients, all in patients who underwent transplant after InO treatment. Only one of the five had undergone a prior transplant. All SOS cases were grade 3 and were treated with defibrotide; four cases resolved quickly, and one was resolving at the time of death from other causes, she said.
“We found no evidence of association with age, conditioning regimen, SOS prophylaxis, cumulative InO exposure, or time from InO to transplant, bearing in mind that it is a small number of cases, so analysis is limited,” she added.
Central CD22 evaluation in 27 patients with pre– and post–cycle 1 samples showed that 11 of those patients had residual disease at the end of cycle 1.
“There is clearly a subset of patients for whom the resistance mechanism does not seem to have any bearing on CD22, as it was still highly expressed at the time of relapse, but there are a significant number of patients who have downregulation of CD22 expression or a subset of blasts that were CD22 negative at the time of relapse,” she said. “Notably, two of three patients with baseline partial CD22 expression – so less than 90% ... did not achieve a morphologic complete response, and both of these patients had KMT2A rearrangements.”
The findings are important, because 10%-20% of children and young adults with B-ALL will relapse, and therapies that can bridge patients to HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy are critical for improving outcomes, Dr. O’Brien said, explaining that InO, a humanized CD22 IgG4 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in adults based on “the impressive results from the INNOVATE trial, compared with chemotherapy,” but prospective data on its efficacy and safety in pediatric patients are lacking.
Retrospective data from a compassionate use program in children demonstrated a response rate of 67% in a heavily pretreated population, and phase 1 data from the ITCC-059 trial presented in a poster at the ASH meeting also showed “quite impressive results,” but a major concern has been hepatic toxicity, including SOS, she said.
Given the observed safety and efficacy in the current phase 2 trial, investigation in children will continue, she said, explaining that “COG is now undertaking a phase 3 trial – AALL1732 – which will randomize patients to chemotherapy [with or without] inotuzumab for patients aged 1-25 with newly diagnosed high-risk B-ALL.”
COG AALL1621 was funded by NCTN grants, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and Pfizer. Dr. O’Brien reported research funding from Pfizer, Celgene, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and BTG.
SOURCE: O’Brien M et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 741.
ORLANDO – Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a CD22-targeted antibody approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL), showed promising safety and efficacy in children and young adults with R/R B-ALL in a phase 2 trial.
Of 48 patients aged 1-21 years enrolled in the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Protocol AALL1621 and evaluable for response and toxicity after treatment with the approved adult InO dose, 19 achieved a complete response (CR) and 9 achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery (CRi) after the first treatment cycle, for an overall CR/CRi rate of 58.3%, Maureen M. O’Brien, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Of those with CR/CRi, 19 (65.5%) achieved minimal residual disease less than 0.01%, said Dr. O’Brien, a pediatric hematologist and medical director of the Leukemia/Lymphoma Program at the Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Three patients had a partial response (PR), nine had stable disease (SD), and eight had progressive disease (PD), and one of each with PR and SD achieved CR/CRi after a second treatment cycle.
“Of note, two patients who were characterized as [having] progressive disease actually had marrow complete response with incomplete count recovery, but had progressive CNS disease,” she said.
Patients included in the single-arm trial had CD22-positive B-ALL, defined as B-ALL with greater than 20% of blasts expressing CD22, and were in at least their second relapse, were refractory to two prior induction regimens, or had a relapse after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). One exception was that patients with Down syndrome were allowed inclusion after a first relapse, she noted.
Median patient age was 9 years, four patients had CNS 3 status, three had Down syndrome, and most were heavily pretreated, with 32 in at least their second relapse.
“Most patients had significant marrow disease burden, with a median marrow blast percentage of 81%,” Dr. O’Brien said. “In terms of prior therapy, 23% had prior transplant, 23% had prior CD19 [chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)] T-cell therapy – including two patients with prior CD22 CAR T, and 29% of patients had received prior blinatumomab.”
All patients received one cycle of InO at a dose of 1.8mg/m2, with .8mg/m2 given on day 1 and 0.5mg/m2 given on days 8 and 15. Intrathecal therapy was determined based on CNS status.
Patients with at least stable disease at day 28 were eligible for a second cycle; those with CR or CRi received InO at a dose of 0.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 2, and those without CR/CRi received the same fractionated dose as in cycle 1. Patients with CR/CRi after two cycles were eligible for up to six total cycles at investigator discretion, Dr. O’Brien explained, adding that 26 of 40 patients eligible for cycle 2 proceeded, including 13 of 18 with MRD less than .01%, 6 of 10 with MRD of 0.01% or greater, and 7 of 12 with PR/SD.
After cycle 2, all 13 with MRD less than .01% maintained that MRD level, 3 of 6 with MRD of .01% or greater achieved MRD less than .01%, 2 of 7 with PR/SD achieved CRi with MRD of .01% or greater – and one of those 2 was MRD negative after a third cycle.
Seven patients received three or more cycles.
“Therapy was extremely well tolerated,” Dr. O’Brien said, noting that the most common nonhematological grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in cycle 1 were febrile neutropenia and infection, occurring in 27.1% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. “But toxicity was quite minimal.”
Hepatic toxicity included four cases of grade 3 alanine transaminase and one grade 3 bilirubin toxicity in cycle 1, and one grade 3 ALT in cycle 2.
“Importantly, there were no inotuzumab dose modifications or delays due to hepatic toxicity,” she said.
Nine patients experienced 11 dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including 7 involving prolonged count recovery beyond day 42, which was not attributable to disease, and 4 nonhematologic events, including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory distress, and a postintrathecal methotrexate stroke.
Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) developed in 5 of the 48 patients, all in patients who underwent transplant after InO treatment. Only one of the five had undergone a prior transplant. All SOS cases were grade 3 and were treated with defibrotide; four cases resolved quickly, and one was resolving at the time of death from other causes, she said.
“We found no evidence of association with age, conditioning regimen, SOS prophylaxis, cumulative InO exposure, or time from InO to transplant, bearing in mind that it is a small number of cases, so analysis is limited,” she added.
Central CD22 evaluation in 27 patients with pre– and post–cycle 1 samples showed that 11 of those patients had residual disease at the end of cycle 1.
“There is clearly a subset of patients for whom the resistance mechanism does not seem to have any bearing on CD22, as it was still highly expressed at the time of relapse, but there are a significant number of patients who have downregulation of CD22 expression or a subset of blasts that were CD22 negative at the time of relapse,” she said. “Notably, two of three patients with baseline partial CD22 expression – so less than 90% ... did not achieve a morphologic complete response, and both of these patients had KMT2A rearrangements.”
The findings are important, because 10%-20% of children and young adults with B-ALL will relapse, and therapies that can bridge patients to HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy are critical for improving outcomes, Dr. O’Brien said, explaining that InO, a humanized CD22 IgG4 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in adults based on “the impressive results from the INNOVATE trial, compared with chemotherapy,” but prospective data on its efficacy and safety in pediatric patients are lacking.
Retrospective data from a compassionate use program in children demonstrated a response rate of 67% in a heavily pretreated population, and phase 1 data from the ITCC-059 trial presented in a poster at the ASH meeting also showed “quite impressive results,” but a major concern has been hepatic toxicity, including SOS, she said.
Given the observed safety and efficacy in the current phase 2 trial, investigation in children will continue, she said, explaining that “COG is now undertaking a phase 3 trial – AALL1732 – which will randomize patients to chemotherapy [with or without] inotuzumab for patients aged 1-25 with newly diagnosed high-risk B-ALL.”
COG AALL1621 was funded by NCTN grants, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and Pfizer. Dr. O’Brien reported research funding from Pfizer, Celgene, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and BTG.
SOURCE: O’Brien M et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 741.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
FDA: Cell phones still look safe
according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.
The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.
The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.
The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.
Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”
The full review is available on the FDA website.
according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.
The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.
The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.
The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.
Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”
The full review is available on the FDA website.
according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.
The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.
The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.
The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.
Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”
The full review is available on the FDA website.