User login
Could your patients benefit? New trials in lung cancer
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.
New cancer screen, same issues: Physicians confront Galleri test
In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.
The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.
It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.
When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.
Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.
Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.
The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.
Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.
Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.
The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.
After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.
“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”
Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.
In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.
Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.
His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.
Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.
Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.
The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.
Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.
She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.
For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.
In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.
Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.
According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.
But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.
Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.
It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”
Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.
However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.
While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.
Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.
Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.
The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.
“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”
Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.
“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.
Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.
A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.
The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?
Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.
Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.
Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.
Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.
“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.
The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.
It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.
When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.
Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.
Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.
The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.
Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.
Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.
The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.
After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.
“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”
Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.
In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.
Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.
His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.
Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.
Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.
The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.
Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.
She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.
For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.
In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.
Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.
According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.
But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.
Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.
It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”
Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.
However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.
While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.
Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.
Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.
The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.
“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”
Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.
“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.
Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.
A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.
The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?
Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.
Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.
Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.
Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.
“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.
The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.
It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.
When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.
Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.
Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.
The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.
Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.
Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.
The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.
After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.
“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”
Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.
In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.
Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.
His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.
Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.
Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.
The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.
Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.
She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.
For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.
In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.
Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.
According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.
But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.
Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.
It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”
Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.
However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.
While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.
Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.
Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.
The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.
“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”
Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.
“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.
Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.
A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.
The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?
Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.
Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.
Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.
Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.
“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Local therapies show promise for metastatic lung cancer
“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.
In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.
But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief.
This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.
In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.
That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.
At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.
But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.
Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.
Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?
I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.
It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.
We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.
In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.
But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief.
This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.
In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.
That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.
At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.
But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.
Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.
Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?
I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.
It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.
We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Don’t close the barn door after the horse is gone,” the old proverb goes. In other words, there’s no sense in trying to prevent something when it’s already too late.
In many ways and for many years, this saying has applied to providing local therapies to treat cancers that have metastasized to distant sites. I learned this lesson early on from my mentors and have relayed it to countless patients with advanced cancer over the past several decades.
But a growing body of evidence, alongside promising new therapies, highlights more and more exceptions to this long-held belief.
This concept was outlined decades ago for oligometastatic disease and has since been studied in greater depth, and is even being applied in practice. Local therapy for colorectal cancer with limited liver-only metastases is now established as a path to potentially excellent long-term survival. And prospective randomized trials of local therapies for oligometastatic lung cancer or prostate cancer have also demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes that should lead us to strongly consider integrating local therapy for appropriately selected patients.
In addition, early retrospective studies have provided a proof of principle that patients with solitary brain or adrenal metastases from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can do exceptionally well and even remain disease-free for many years after definitive local therapy to the primary tumor and oligometastatic disease. For example, a recent press release on the LUNAR trial reported an improvement in overall survival with tumor-treating fields (TTFs), a local therapy, compared with docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.
That said, the selection process for who receives local therapy remains subjective. In practice, I see patients who fall well outside of conventional oligometastatic parameters but who are directed to local therapy, commonly when systemic therapy is considered futile or prohibitively toxic.
At the same time, however, I also see many patients who would be appropriate candidates for local therapy for oligometastatic disease for whom this strategy is not pursued, perhaps because some oncologists remain dubious about the value of local therapy in this setting. And although we await the full data from the LUNAR trial, I would expect TTFs to face challenges in broad adoption because it is a novel platform with cumbersome practical application, particularly outside of larger centers.
But beyond the potential for TTFs to change management of previously treated advanced NSCLC, I think the findings are more significant because they represent a step, perhaps even a quantum leap, in the role that local therapy could play in improving survival in a broad, unselected population with advanced disease. That is a far more meaningful prospect than conferring benefits in well-selected patients with a narrow subtype of lung cancer. It will be important to determine whether certain subgroups from the LUNAR trial are driving this overall survival benefit.
Local therapy may even have value in the advanced cancer setting beyond oligometastatic disease. That potential is being explored in the SABR-COMET-10 trial, which randomly assigned 159 patients with 4-10 metastatic lesions from various cancers to stereotactic ablative body radiation with standard systemic therapy or the latter alone. With overall survival as the primary endpoint, this study could further revise our understanding of the use of local therapy for treating patients whose cancer biology does not fit the definition of oligometastatic disease.
Does this evolving landscape mean that we were wrong to minimize the role of local therapy?
I don’t think so. The risk/benefit of local therapy today is predicated on two key factors that were absent a few decades ago. First, local therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation, minimally invasive surgery, and TTFs now offer disease control with far less attendant toxicity than conventional external beam radiation therapy or open surgery. Second, newer systemic therapies that include targeted therapies and immunotherapy confer remarkably greater disease control for far more patients than does conventional chemotherapy alone.
It is this combination of local therapy’s excellent therapeutic index applied against a background of far better systemic disease control that makes the interplay of local and systemic treatments a newly relevant, open question.
We have yet to see the details of several pivotal trials, but I feel that we should be prepared to question some of the historic dogma in our field to achieve better outcomes not just for selected, narrow subgroups but for a broader population with different types of metastatic cancer.
Dr. West is clinical associate professor, department of medical oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He disclosed ties with Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Spectrum. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Less invasive NSCLC surgery does not compromise survival
suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.
These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.
Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.
Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.
The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.
In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.
“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.
However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”
She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”
“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”
While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”
Consistent with Japanese results
The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.
The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”
In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”
Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.
Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.
“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
Study details
Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.
In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.
After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.
The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).
The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.
Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.
An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.
It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.
“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”
Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.
Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.
These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.
Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.
Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.
The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.
In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.
“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.
However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”
She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”
“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”
While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”
Consistent with Japanese results
The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.
The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”
In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”
Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.
Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.
“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
Study details
Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.
In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.
After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.
The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).
The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.
Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.
An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.
It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.
“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”
Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.
Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.
These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.
Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.
Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.
The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.
In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.
“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.
However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”
She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”
“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”
While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”
Consistent with Japanese results
The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.
The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”
In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”
Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.
Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.
“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
Study details
Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.
In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.
After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.
The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).
The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.
Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.
An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.
It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.
“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”
Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.
Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Three wild technologies about to change health care
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Spectrum of dermatologic adverse events associated with amivantamab use
associated with EGFR inhibitors and atypical presentations. Toxic effects, however, were mitigated by dose interruptions, dAE management, and amivantamab dose reductions, allowing for cancer therapy continuation in all cases. Amivantamab doses were reduced in 5 out of 6 cases, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.
The EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutation portends insensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and poor prognosis. Amivantamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR and mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) is Food and Drug Administration approved for this population. Acneiform eruptions and pruritus are the most common dAEs associated with EGFR inhibitors, with xerosis, fissures, and nail and hair changes occurring additionally. While no FDA-approved monoclonal antibody targets MET exclusively, capmatinib and tepotinib (both tyrosine kinase inhibitors) inhibit MET. They have been associated with photosensitivity, acneiform rash, paronychia, xerosis, pruritus, and mucositis.
The Belzer et al. letter reviewed six consecutive cases (mean age, 58) of dAEs associated with amivantamab at two academic health centers (treated June 2021 to August 2022) in order to describe dAEs associated with amivantamab use. “I suspect the rate of dAEs with amivantamab is similar to the rate of dAEs associated with first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors, where the majority of patients, actually 75%-90%, develop cutaneous toxicity,” said Jonathan Leventhal, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., corresponding author for the Belzer et al. letter.
Time from treatment initiation with amivantamab to dAE ranged from less than 1 month to 4 months. All dAEs were grade 2 or 3 and all included acneiform eruptions. These were widespread in four cases and in another case complicated by impetiginization (culture results positive for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus), and a further case was limited to the scalp, face, upper back, and upper chest. Others with widespread acneiform eruption included the face with hyperkeratotic crust of the scalp and dermatitis of the posterior neck. Fissuring of the palms and soles was noted in two cases with widespread acneiform eruptions. Paronychia with pyogenic granulomas was reported in four cases. Another case included onycholysis with suppurative paronychia.
In five cases amivantamab was stopped but successfully reinitiated at 67%-75% of the original dose. In one case amivantamab was continued at the original dose.
Doxycycline at 100 mg twice daily was included among all of the treatments for cutaneous dAEs. Silver nitrate cautery was applied for pyogenic granulomas in clinic. The case of grade 3 acneiform eruption of the scalp and face was treated with hydrogen peroxide soaks with debridement in clinic, doxycycline, aluminum acetate soaks, and triamcinolone ointment. All dermatologic cases resolved fully without scarring.
“It is very likely that this series highlights the more severe and unusual presentations of dAEs which were referred to oncodermatology. I suspect milder presentations were likely managed by oncologists,” Dr. Leventhal said in the interview.
“It is important for dermatologists and oncologists to be aware of the more severe and atypical dAEs associated with this novel FDA-approved targeted therapy.” Dr. Belzer said. “As amivantamab use increases, oncologists and dermatologists need to collaborate to ensure swift diagnosis and management of dAEs.”
One trial, the authors stated, revealed more than half of patients receiving EGFR inhibitors taking preemptive treatment with moisturizers, sunscreen, topical corticosteroids, and an oral tetracycline to have more than a 50% reduction in grade 2 or higher dAEs. Belzer et al. concluded that prophylactic treatment, including sun protection, should be considered before initiating treatment with amivantamab.
A limitation of the study, Belzer et al. acknowledged, was the small sample size.
Dr. Leventhal reported receiving personal fees from the advisory boards of Sanofi, Regeneron, and La Roche-Posay as well as clinical trial funding from Azitra and OnQuality Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
associated with EGFR inhibitors and atypical presentations. Toxic effects, however, were mitigated by dose interruptions, dAE management, and amivantamab dose reductions, allowing for cancer therapy continuation in all cases. Amivantamab doses were reduced in 5 out of 6 cases, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.
The EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutation portends insensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and poor prognosis. Amivantamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR and mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) is Food and Drug Administration approved for this population. Acneiform eruptions and pruritus are the most common dAEs associated with EGFR inhibitors, with xerosis, fissures, and nail and hair changes occurring additionally. While no FDA-approved monoclonal antibody targets MET exclusively, capmatinib and tepotinib (both tyrosine kinase inhibitors) inhibit MET. They have been associated with photosensitivity, acneiform rash, paronychia, xerosis, pruritus, and mucositis.
The Belzer et al. letter reviewed six consecutive cases (mean age, 58) of dAEs associated with amivantamab at two academic health centers (treated June 2021 to August 2022) in order to describe dAEs associated with amivantamab use. “I suspect the rate of dAEs with amivantamab is similar to the rate of dAEs associated with first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors, where the majority of patients, actually 75%-90%, develop cutaneous toxicity,” said Jonathan Leventhal, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., corresponding author for the Belzer et al. letter.
Time from treatment initiation with amivantamab to dAE ranged from less than 1 month to 4 months. All dAEs were grade 2 or 3 and all included acneiform eruptions. These were widespread in four cases and in another case complicated by impetiginization (culture results positive for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus), and a further case was limited to the scalp, face, upper back, and upper chest. Others with widespread acneiform eruption included the face with hyperkeratotic crust of the scalp and dermatitis of the posterior neck. Fissuring of the palms and soles was noted in two cases with widespread acneiform eruptions. Paronychia with pyogenic granulomas was reported in four cases. Another case included onycholysis with suppurative paronychia.
In five cases amivantamab was stopped but successfully reinitiated at 67%-75% of the original dose. In one case amivantamab was continued at the original dose.
Doxycycline at 100 mg twice daily was included among all of the treatments for cutaneous dAEs. Silver nitrate cautery was applied for pyogenic granulomas in clinic. The case of grade 3 acneiform eruption of the scalp and face was treated with hydrogen peroxide soaks with debridement in clinic, doxycycline, aluminum acetate soaks, and triamcinolone ointment. All dermatologic cases resolved fully without scarring.
“It is very likely that this series highlights the more severe and unusual presentations of dAEs which were referred to oncodermatology. I suspect milder presentations were likely managed by oncologists,” Dr. Leventhal said in the interview.
“It is important for dermatologists and oncologists to be aware of the more severe and atypical dAEs associated with this novel FDA-approved targeted therapy.” Dr. Belzer said. “As amivantamab use increases, oncologists and dermatologists need to collaborate to ensure swift diagnosis and management of dAEs.”
One trial, the authors stated, revealed more than half of patients receiving EGFR inhibitors taking preemptive treatment with moisturizers, sunscreen, topical corticosteroids, and an oral tetracycline to have more than a 50% reduction in grade 2 or higher dAEs. Belzer et al. concluded that prophylactic treatment, including sun protection, should be considered before initiating treatment with amivantamab.
A limitation of the study, Belzer et al. acknowledged, was the small sample size.
Dr. Leventhal reported receiving personal fees from the advisory boards of Sanofi, Regeneron, and La Roche-Posay as well as clinical trial funding from Azitra and OnQuality Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
associated with EGFR inhibitors and atypical presentations. Toxic effects, however, were mitigated by dose interruptions, dAE management, and amivantamab dose reductions, allowing for cancer therapy continuation in all cases. Amivantamab doses were reduced in 5 out of 6 cases, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.
The EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutation portends insensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and poor prognosis. Amivantamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR and mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) is Food and Drug Administration approved for this population. Acneiform eruptions and pruritus are the most common dAEs associated with EGFR inhibitors, with xerosis, fissures, and nail and hair changes occurring additionally. While no FDA-approved monoclonal antibody targets MET exclusively, capmatinib and tepotinib (both tyrosine kinase inhibitors) inhibit MET. They have been associated with photosensitivity, acneiform rash, paronychia, xerosis, pruritus, and mucositis.
The Belzer et al. letter reviewed six consecutive cases (mean age, 58) of dAEs associated with amivantamab at two academic health centers (treated June 2021 to August 2022) in order to describe dAEs associated with amivantamab use. “I suspect the rate of dAEs with amivantamab is similar to the rate of dAEs associated with first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors, where the majority of patients, actually 75%-90%, develop cutaneous toxicity,” said Jonathan Leventhal, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., corresponding author for the Belzer et al. letter.
Time from treatment initiation with amivantamab to dAE ranged from less than 1 month to 4 months. All dAEs were grade 2 or 3 and all included acneiform eruptions. These were widespread in four cases and in another case complicated by impetiginization (culture results positive for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus), and a further case was limited to the scalp, face, upper back, and upper chest. Others with widespread acneiform eruption included the face with hyperkeratotic crust of the scalp and dermatitis of the posterior neck. Fissuring of the palms and soles was noted in two cases with widespread acneiform eruptions. Paronychia with pyogenic granulomas was reported in four cases. Another case included onycholysis with suppurative paronychia.
In five cases amivantamab was stopped but successfully reinitiated at 67%-75% of the original dose. In one case amivantamab was continued at the original dose.
Doxycycline at 100 mg twice daily was included among all of the treatments for cutaneous dAEs. Silver nitrate cautery was applied for pyogenic granulomas in clinic. The case of grade 3 acneiform eruption of the scalp and face was treated with hydrogen peroxide soaks with debridement in clinic, doxycycline, aluminum acetate soaks, and triamcinolone ointment. All dermatologic cases resolved fully without scarring.
“It is very likely that this series highlights the more severe and unusual presentations of dAEs which were referred to oncodermatology. I suspect milder presentations were likely managed by oncologists,” Dr. Leventhal said in the interview.
“It is important for dermatologists and oncologists to be aware of the more severe and atypical dAEs associated with this novel FDA-approved targeted therapy.” Dr. Belzer said. “As amivantamab use increases, oncologists and dermatologists need to collaborate to ensure swift diagnosis and management of dAEs.”
One trial, the authors stated, revealed more than half of patients receiving EGFR inhibitors taking preemptive treatment with moisturizers, sunscreen, topical corticosteroids, and an oral tetracycline to have more than a 50% reduction in grade 2 or higher dAEs. Belzer et al. concluded that prophylactic treatment, including sun protection, should be considered before initiating treatment with amivantamab.
A limitation of the study, Belzer et al. acknowledged, was the small sample size.
Dr. Leventhal reported receiving personal fees from the advisory boards of Sanofi, Regeneron, and La Roche-Posay as well as clinical trial funding from Azitra and OnQuality Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Gene test may offer insights into treatment response in advanced NSCLC
therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.
Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”
Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”
The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.
For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.
Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.
“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”
He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”
A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.
The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”
The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.
Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.
therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.
Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”
Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”
The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.
For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.
Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.
“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”
He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”
A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.
The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”
The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.
Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.
therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.
Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”
Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”
The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.
For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.
Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.
“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”
He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”
A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.
The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”
The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.
Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.
FROM SITC 2022
NSCLC Medications
My patient chose quality of life over treatment
Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”
I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.
The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
The patient’s voice in research and advocacy
The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.
More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
Accelerated research
Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.
It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.
So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.
Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”
I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.
The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
The patient’s voice in research and advocacy
The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.
More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
Accelerated research
Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.
It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.
So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.
Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”
I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.
The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
The patient’s voice in research and advocacy
The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.
More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
Accelerated research
Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.
It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.
So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.
If we care about cancer patients, we must care about climate change
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.