Lung Cancer

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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

TOPLINE:

Lung cancer screening was associated with earlier-stage diagnoses and improved survival in a retrospective analysis of a large cohort with low screening uptake. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown a mortality benefit with low-dose CT screening to detect lung cancer, but the benefits in clinical practice remain unclear, and lung cancer screening uptake has been slow.
• In this study, researchers assessed the impact of lung cancer screening among Veteran Health Administration patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018.
• The team evaluated lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer–specific survival, and overall survival in patients with lung cancer who did vs did not receive screening before their diagnosis.
• Statistical analyses included Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting with lead-time bias adjustment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer during the study period, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening with at least one low-dose CT before receiving their diagnosis. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or race among patients who had prior screening and those who did not.
• Screened patients had double the rate of stage I diagnoses compared with unscreened patients (52% vs 27%) and about one third the rate of stage IV diagnoses (11% vs 32%).
• Patients who received screening before their cancer diagnosis had better overall survival rates compared with unscreened patients. The overall survival rates were 81.2% vs 56.6% at 1 year, 69.9% vs 41.1% at 2 years, and 44.9% vs 22.3% at 5 years, respectively. Lung cancer–specific survival was also better: The survival rates were 82.5% vs 58.7% at 1 year, 74.3% vs 44.4% at 2 years, and 59.0% vs 29.7% at 5 years, respectively.
• A subset analysis of screening-eligible patients (defined as those between the ages of 50-88 who were smokers with a pack-year history of ≥ 20 years or former smokers who quit within 15 years) showed that among those who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment within 12 months of diagnosis, screening resulted in “substantial” reductions in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79) and lung cancer–specific mortality (aHR, 0.61).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide corroboration of the results of randomized [lung cancer screening] trials in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We hope that the striking association between [lung cancer screening], earlier stage diagnosis of lung cancer, and improved mortality spurs a more robust uptake of this life-saving intervention into clinical practice.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Donna M. Edwards MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective and correlative design, and the authors also were unable to assess whether lung cancer screening contributed to more subsequence procedures in screened vs unscreened patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the LUNGevity Foundation, US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cancer Institute, and Lung Precision Oncology Program. One author declared being a consultant for industry. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Lung cancer screening was associated with earlier-stage diagnoses and improved survival in a retrospective analysis of a large cohort with low screening uptake. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown a mortality benefit with low-dose CT screening to detect lung cancer, but the benefits in clinical practice remain unclear, and lung cancer screening uptake has been slow.
• In this study, researchers assessed the impact of lung cancer screening among Veteran Health Administration patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018.
• The team evaluated lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer–specific survival, and overall survival in patients with lung cancer who did vs did not receive screening before their diagnosis.
• Statistical analyses included Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting with lead-time bias adjustment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer during the study period, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening with at least one low-dose CT before receiving their diagnosis. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or race among patients who had prior screening and those who did not.
• Screened patients had double the rate of stage I diagnoses compared with unscreened patients (52% vs 27%) and about one third the rate of stage IV diagnoses (11% vs 32%).
• Patients who received screening before their cancer diagnosis had better overall survival rates compared with unscreened patients. The overall survival rates were 81.2% vs 56.6% at 1 year, 69.9% vs 41.1% at 2 years, and 44.9% vs 22.3% at 5 years, respectively. Lung cancer–specific survival was also better: The survival rates were 82.5% vs 58.7% at 1 year, 74.3% vs 44.4% at 2 years, and 59.0% vs 29.7% at 5 years, respectively.
• A subset analysis of screening-eligible patients (defined as those between the ages of 50-88 who were smokers with a pack-year history of ≥ 20 years or former smokers who quit within 15 years) showed that among those who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment within 12 months of diagnosis, screening resulted in “substantial” reductions in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79) and lung cancer–specific mortality (aHR, 0.61).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide corroboration of the results of randomized [lung cancer screening] trials in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We hope that the striking association between [lung cancer screening], earlier stage diagnosis of lung cancer, and improved mortality spurs a more robust uptake of this life-saving intervention into clinical practice.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Donna M. Edwards MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective and correlative design, and the authors also were unable to assess whether lung cancer screening contributed to more subsequence procedures in screened vs unscreened patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the LUNGevity Foundation, US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cancer Institute, and Lung Precision Oncology Program. One author declared being a consultant for industry. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Lung cancer screening was associated with earlier-stage diagnoses and improved survival in a retrospective analysis of a large cohort with low screening uptake. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown a mortality benefit with low-dose CT screening to detect lung cancer, but the benefits in clinical practice remain unclear, and lung cancer screening uptake has been slow.
• In this study, researchers assessed the impact of lung cancer screening among Veteran Health Administration patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018.
• The team evaluated lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer–specific survival, and overall survival in patients with lung cancer who did vs did not receive screening before their diagnosis.
• Statistical analyses included Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting with lead-time bias adjustment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer during the study period, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening with at least one low-dose CT before receiving their diagnosis. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or race among patients who had prior screening and those who did not.
• Screened patients had double the rate of stage I diagnoses compared with unscreened patients (52% vs 27%) and about one third the rate of stage IV diagnoses (11% vs 32%).
• Patients who received screening before their cancer diagnosis had better overall survival rates compared with unscreened patients. The overall survival rates were 81.2% vs 56.6% at 1 year, 69.9% vs 41.1% at 2 years, and 44.9% vs 22.3% at 5 years, respectively. Lung cancer–specific survival was also better: The survival rates were 82.5% vs 58.7% at 1 year, 74.3% vs 44.4% at 2 years, and 59.0% vs 29.7% at 5 years, respectively.
• A subset analysis of screening-eligible patients (defined as those between the ages of 50-88 who were smokers with a pack-year history of ≥ 20 years or former smokers who quit within 15 years) showed that among those who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment within 12 months of diagnosis, screening resulted in “substantial” reductions in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79) and lung cancer–specific mortality (aHR, 0.61).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide corroboration of the results of randomized [lung cancer screening] trials in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We hope that the striking association between [lung cancer screening], earlier stage diagnosis of lung cancer, and improved mortality spurs a more robust uptake of this life-saving intervention into clinical practice.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Donna M. Edwards MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective and correlative design, and the authors also were unable to assess whether lung cancer screening contributed to more subsequence procedures in screened vs unscreened patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the LUNGevity Foundation, US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cancer Institute, and Lung Precision Oncology Program. One author declared being a consultant for industry. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.

Among patients randomized to either osimertinib or placebo following definitive chemoradiation, osimertinib extended median progression-free survival by 33.5 months compared with placebo — 39.1 vs 5.6 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.16; P = .001).

The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”

“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”

In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.

Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.

Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.

The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.

Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.

Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.

EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.

Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.

If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.

A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.

The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.

Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.

About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.

Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.

Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.

Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.

The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.

Among patients randomized to either osimertinib or placebo following definitive chemoradiation, osimertinib extended median progression-free survival by 33.5 months compared with placebo — 39.1 vs 5.6 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.16; P = .001).

The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”

“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”

In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.

Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.

Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.

The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.

Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.

Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.

EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.

Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.

If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.

A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.

The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.

Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.

About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.

Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.

Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.

Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.

The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.

Among patients randomized to either osimertinib or placebo following definitive chemoradiation, osimertinib extended median progression-free survival by 33.5 months compared with placebo — 39.1 vs 5.6 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.16; P = .001).

The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”

“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”

In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.

Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.

Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.

The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.

Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.

Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.

EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.

Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.

If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.

A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.

The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.

Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.

About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.

Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.

Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.

Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.

The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding durvalumab as consolidation treatment following concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) adds 2 years of life and increases progression-free survival by 24%, compared with placebo, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).

These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.

“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
 

ADRIATIC Methods and Results

The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.

The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
 

New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC

“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.

“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.

Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”

Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.

“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.

“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.

“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.

Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.

Adding durvalumab as consolidation treatment following concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) adds 2 years of life and increases progression-free survival by 24%, compared with placebo, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).

These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.

“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
 

ADRIATIC Methods and Results

The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.

The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
 

New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC

“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.

“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.

Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”

Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.

“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.

“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.

“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.

Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.

Adding durvalumab as consolidation treatment following concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) adds 2 years of life and increases progression-free survival by 24%, compared with placebo, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).

These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.

“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
 

ADRIATIC Methods and Results

The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.

The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
 

New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC

“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.

“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.

Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”

Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.

“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.

“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.

“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.

Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.