Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.

In patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a once-daily oral regimen of ibrutinib and venetoclax was associated with deep molecular remissions in both bone marrow and peripheral blood, including in patients with high-risk disease, according to investigators in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE MRD trial.

An intention-to-treat analysis of 164 patients with CLL/SLL treated with the combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) showed a 75% rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in peripheral blood, and a 68% rate of MRD negativity in bone marrow among patients who received up to 12 cycles of the combination, reported Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., and colleagues.

“This phase 2 study supports synergistic antitumor activity of the combination with notable deep responses across multiple compartments,” she said in an oral presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
 

Not ready to change practice

A hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study said that the data from CAPTIVATE MRD look good, but it’s still not known whether concurrent or sequential administration of the agents is optimal, and whether other regimens may be more effective in the first line.

“I think this is promising, but the informative and practice-changing study would be to compare this combination to ibrutinib monotherapy or to venetoclax and obinutuzumab, and that’s actually the subject of the next large German cooperative group study, CLL17,” said Catherine C. Coombs, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, and the UNC Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.

She noted that the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva) is also associated with high rates of MRD negativity in the first-line setting, and that use of this regimen allows clinicians to reserve ibrutinib or acalabrutinib (Calquence) for patients in the relapsed setting.
 

Prerandomization results

Dr. Siddiqi presented prerandomization results from the MRD cohort of the CAPTIVATE trial (NCT02910583), which is evaluating the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax for depth of MRD response. Following 12 cycles of the combinations, patients in this cohort are then randomized based on confirmed MRD status, with patients who are MRD negative randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib or placebo, and patients with residual disease (MRD positive) randomized to maintenance with either ibrutinib alone or with venetoclax.

A total of 164 patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL and active disease requiring treatment who were under age 70 and had good performance status were enrolled. Following an ibrutinib lead-in period with the drug given at 420 mg once daily for three cycles of 28 days, the patients were continued on ibrutinib, and were started on venetoclax with a ramp up to 400 mg once daily, for 12 additional cycles.

As planned, patients were assessed after 15 cycles for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk assessment, MRD, and hematologic, clinical, imaging, and bone marrow exams for response.

The median patient age was 58, with poor-risk features such as deletion 17p seen in 16%, complex karyotype in 19%, and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) in 59%.

A total of 152 patients (90%) completed all 12 cycles of the combined agents, with a median treatment duration of 14.7 months on ibrutinib and 12 months on venetoclax. Eight patients had adverse events leading to discontinuation, but there were no treatment-related deaths.

A majority of patients had reductions in lymph node burden after the three-cycle ibrutinib lead in. TLS risk also decreased during the lead-in period, with 90% of patients who had a high baseline TLS risk shifting to medium or low-risk categories, and no patients moved into the high-risk category.

“Hospitalization because of this was no longer required in 66% of at-risk patients after three cycles of ibrutinib lead in, and 82% of patients initiated venetoclax ramp up without the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

The best response of undetectable MRD was seen in peripheral blood of 75% of 163 evaluable patients, and in bone marrow of 72% of 155 patients. As noted before, the respective rates of MRD negativity in the intention-to-treat population were 75% and 68%. The proportion of patients with undetectable MRD in peripheral blood increased over time, from 57% after six cycles of the combination, she said.

The overall response rate was 97%, including 51% complete responses (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi), and 46% partial (PR) or nodular PR (nPR). Among patients with CR/CRi, 85% had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and 80% were MRD negative in bone marrow. In patients with PR/nPR, the respective rates were 69% and 59%. The high rates of undetectable MRD were seen irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, including bulky disease, cytogenetic risk category, del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and complex karyotype.

The most common adverse events with the combination were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, arthralgia, fatigue, headache, and nausea. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17% of patients, and grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 16%. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and laboratory confirmed TLS occurred in 2 patients each (1%), and there were no grade 4 instances of either adverse event.

Postrandomization follow-up and analyses are currently being conducted, and results will be reported at a future meeting, real or virtual. An analysis of data on a separate cohort of 159 patients treated with the ibrutinib-venetoclax combination for a fixed duration is currently ongoing.

Dr. Siddiqi disclosed research funding and speakers bureau activity for Pharmacyclics, which sponsored the study, and others, as well as consulting/advising for several companies. Dr. Coombs disclosed consulting for AbbVie.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. EHA25. Abstract S158.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy was a more effective therapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, high-grade,mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma than the use of chemotherapy alone, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The addition of rituximab resulted in long-term complete remission in the vast majority of patients, reported Veronique Minard-Colin, MD, of the Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif Cedex, France, and her colleagues on behalf of the European Intergroup for Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and the Children’s Oncology Group.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

The researchers performed an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of 328 patients younger than 18 years of age with high-risk, mature B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (stage III with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level or stage IV) or acute leukemia to compare the addition of six doses of rituximab to standard lymphomes malins B (LMB) chemotherapy with standard LMB chemotherapy alone. There were 164 patients assigned to each group. The primary end point of the study was event-free survival; overall survival and toxic effects were also followed.

The majority of patients had Burkitt’s lymphoma: 139 (84.8%) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 142 (86.6%) in the chemotherapy-alone group, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma being the second most common cancer: 19 (11.6%) vs. 12 (7.3%), respectively.

Event-free survival at 3 years was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.1-96.7) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 82.3% (95% CI, 75.7-87.5) in the chemotherapy group.

Higher 3-year overall survival was also observed (95.1% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group vs. 87.3% in the chemotherapy group; hazard ratio for death, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 -0.82).

Eight patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group died (4 deaths were disease related, 3 were treatment related, and 1 was from a second cancer), as did 20 in the chemotherapy group (17 deaths disease related, and 3 treatment related); HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82.

The incidence of acute adverse events of grade 4 or higher after prephase treatment was 33.3% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 24.2% in the chemotherapy group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .07). However, around twice as many patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group had a low IgG level at 1 year after trial inclusion, compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, which could indicate the potential for more frequent infections in the long term, the researchers stated.

“An assessment of the long-term effects of combining rituximab with this chemotherapy regimen in children with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including data on immune status, will be useful,” they added.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, the Children’s Cancer Foundation Hong Kong, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and F. Hoffmann–La Roche–Genentech. Several of the authors reported consulting for and institutional and grant funding from F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, which markets rituximab, as well as relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minard-Colin V et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2207-19.

The addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy was a more effective therapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, high-grade,mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma than the use of chemotherapy alone, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The addition of rituximab resulted in long-term complete remission in the vast majority of patients, reported Veronique Minard-Colin, MD, of the Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif Cedex, France, and her colleagues on behalf of the European Intergroup for Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and the Children’s Oncology Group.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

The researchers performed an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of 328 patients younger than 18 years of age with high-risk, mature B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (stage III with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level or stage IV) or acute leukemia to compare the addition of six doses of rituximab to standard lymphomes malins B (LMB) chemotherapy with standard LMB chemotherapy alone. There were 164 patients assigned to each group. The primary end point of the study was event-free survival; overall survival and toxic effects were also followed.

The majority of patients had Burkitt’s lymphoma: 139 (84.8%) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 142 (86.6%) in the chemotherapy-alone group, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma being the second most common cancer: 19 (11.6%) vs. 12 (7.3%), respectively.

Event-free survival at 3 years was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.1-96.7) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 82.3% (95% CI, 75.7-87.5) in the chemotherapy group.

Higher 3-year overall survival was also observed (95.1% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group vs. 87.3% in the chemotherapy group; hazard ratio for death, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 -0.82).

Eight patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group died (4 deaths were disease related, 3 were treatment related, and 1 was from a second cancer), as did 20 in the chemotherapy group (17 deaths disease related, and 3 treatment related); HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82.

The incidence of acute adverse events of grade 4 or higher after prephase treatment was 33.3% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 24.2% in the chemotherapy group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .07). However, around twice as many patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group had a low IgG level at 1 year after trial inclusion, compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, which could indicate the potential for more frequent infections in the long term, the researchers stated.

“An assessment of the long-term effects of combining rituximab with this chemotherapy regimen in children with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including data on immune status, will be useful,” they added.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, the Children’s Cancer Foundation Hong Kong, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and F. Hoffmann–La Roche–Genentech. Several of the authors reported consulting for and institutional and grant funding from F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, which markets rituximab, as well as relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minard-Colin V et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2207-19.

The addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy was a more effective therapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, high-grade,mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma than the use of chemotherapy alone, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The addition of rituximab resulted in long-term complete remission in the vast majority of patients, reported Veronique Minard-Colin, MD, of the Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif Cedex, France, and her colleagues on behalf of the European Intergroup for Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and the Children’s Oncology Group.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

The researchers performed an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of 328 patients younger than 18 years of age with high-risk, mature B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (stage III with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level or stage IV) or acute leukemia to compare the addition of six doses of rituximab to standard lymphomes malins B (LMB) chemotherapy with standard LMB chemotherapy alone. There were 164 patients assigned to each group. The primary end point of the study was event-free survival; overall survival and toxic effects were also followed.

The majority of patients had Burkitt’s lymphoma: 139 (84.8%) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 142 (86.6%) in the chemotherapy-alone group, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma being the second most common cancer: 19 (11.6%) vs. 12 (7.3%), respectively.

Event-free survival at 3 years was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.1-96.7) in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 82.3% (95% CI, 75.7-87.5) in the chemotherapy group.

Higher 3-year overall survival was also observed (95.1% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group vs. 87.3% in the chemotherapy group; hazard ratio for death, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 -0.82).

Eight patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group died (4 deaths were disease related, 3 were treatment related, and 1 was from a second cancer), as did 20 in the chemotherapy group (17 deaths disease related, and 3 treatment related); HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82.

The incidence of acute adverse events of grade 4 or higher after prephase treatment was 33.3% in the rituximab-chemotherapy group and 24.2% in the chemotherapy group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .07). However, around twice as many patients in the rituximab-chemotherapy group had a low IgG level at 1 year after trial inclusion, compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, which could indicate the potential for more frequent infections in the long term, the researchers stated.

“An assessment of the long-term effects of combining rituximab with this chemotherapy regimen in children with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including data on immune status, will be useful,” they added.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, the Children’s Cancer Foundation Hong Kong, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and F. Hoffmann–La Roche–Genentech. Several of the authors reported consulting for and institutional and grant funding from F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, which markets rituximab, as well as relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minard-Colin V et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2207-19.

Pembrolizumab treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus brentuximab vedotin in a randomized, phase 3 trial including patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, an investigator has reported.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in favor of pembrolizumab, according to the report on the KEYNOTE-204 trial, which included patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma who either had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) or were ineligible for autologous SCT.

The PFS improvement was “statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” said investigator John Kuruvilla, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

“This PFS benefit extended to key subgroups, including those ineligible for autologous transplant, patients with primary refractory disease, and patients who were brentuximab-vedotin naive,” Dr. Kuruvilla added in his presentation, which was part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pneumonitis was more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm, but “appeared in general to be quite well managed” among patients who experienced this adverse event, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who said that treatment with the programmed death–1 inhibitor should be considered “the preferred treatment option and the new standard of care” for patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after autologous SCT or are ineligible for it.

Although the pneumonitis findings are important to keep in mind, results of KEYNOTE-204 are indeed “practice defining” and immediately impactful, said Mark J. Roschewski, MD, clinical investigator in the lymphoid malignancies branch at the Center for Cancer Research, part of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

“I would select pembrolizumab over brentuximab for this patient population, particularly those that are refractory to chemotherapy,” he said in a commentary on the study also included in the virtual ASCO proceedings.

“There may be specific patient populations that I’d reconsider, such as those that might be at high risk for lung toxicity,” he added. “They may not be suitable for this, but it’s something to at least to be aware of.”

Although the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin has been considered the standard of care for patients with relapse after autologous SCT, there has historically been no standard of care for patients who are ineligible for transplant because of chemorefractory disease, advanced age, or comorbidities, Dr. Kuruvilla said in his presentation.

In the KEYNOTE-204 study, 304 patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or brentuximab at 1.8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The median age of patients was 36 years in the pembrolizumab arm and 35 years in the brentuximab vedotin arm, according to the report. Approximately 37% of the patients had previously undergone autologous SCT. About 40% had been refractory to frontline therapy, while 28% relapsed within 12 months of therapy and 32% relapsed later than 12 months.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.88; P = .00271), Dr. Kuruvilla reported.

The benefit extended to “key subgroups” in the trial, he added, including those who were ineligible for autologous SCT, those with primary refractory disease, and those who were naive to brentuximab vedotin, with HRs of 0.61, 0.52, and 0.67, respectively.

Pembrolizumab was also associated with more durable responses versus brentuximab vedotin, according to the investigator.

The overall response rate was 65.6% and 54.2%, respectively, for pembrolizumab and brentuximab, although this difference of approximately 11 percentage points did not meet criteria for statistical significance, he said. Duration of response was 20.7 months or pembrolizumab and 13.8 months for brentuximab.

The rate of serious treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who reported grade 3-5 events occurring in 19.6% and 25.0% of the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms. Serious treatment-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm (16.2% vs. 10.5%) and there was one treatment-related death caused by pneumonia, seen in the pembrolizumab arm.

Pneumonitis occurred in 2.6% of the brentuximab-treated patients and in 10.8% of pembrolizumab-treated patients, of which half of cases were grade 3-4, according to the report.

In the pembrolizumab arm, pneumonitis was felt to be drug-related in 15 of 16 cases, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who added that 15 of 16 patients required corticosteroid therapy. “This has led to the resolution of the pneumonitis in 12 of 16 patients, with ongoing resolution in one further patient.”

Research funding for KEYNOTE-204 came from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Kuruvilla provided disclosures related to Merck and a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Roschewski said he had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Kuruvilla J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 8005.

Pembrolizumab treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus brentuximab vedotin in a randomized, phase 3 trial including patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, an investigator has reported.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in favor of pembrolizumab, according to the report on the KEYNOTE-204 trial, which included patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma who either had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) or were ineligible for autologous SCT.

The PFS improvement was “statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” said investigator John Kuruvilla, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

“This PFS benefit extended to key subgroups, including those ineligible for autologous transplant, patients with primary refractory disease, and patients who were brentuximab-vedotin naive,” Dr. Kuruvilla added in his presentation, which was part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pneumonitis was more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm, but “appeared in general to be quite well managed” among patients who experienced this adverse event, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who said that treatment with the programmed death–1 inhibitor should be considered “the preferred treatment option and the new standard of care” for patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after autologous SCT or are ineligible for it.

Although the pneumonitis findings are important to keep in mind, results of KEYNOTE-204 are indeed “practice defining” and immediately impactful, said Mark J. Roschewski, MD, clinical investigator in the lymphoid malignancies branch at the Center for Cancer Research, part of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

“I would select pembrolizumab over brentuximab for this patient population, particularly those that are refractory to chemotherapy,” he said in a commentary on the study also included in the virtual ASCO proceedings.

“There may be specific patient populations that I’d reconsider, such as those that might be at high risk for lung toxicity,” he added. “They may not be suitable for this, but it’s something to at least to be aware of.”

Although the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin has been considered the standard of care for patients with relapse after autologous SCT, there has historically been no standard of care for patients who are ineligible for transplant because of chemorefractory disease, advanced age, or comorbidities, Dr. Kuruvilla said in his presentation.

In the KEYNOTE-204 study, 304 patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or brentuximab at 1.8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The median age of patients was 36 years in the pembrolizumab arm and 35 years in the brentuximab vedotin arm, according to the report. Approximately 37% of the patients had previously undergone autologous SCT. About 40% had been refractory to frontline therapy, while 28% relapsed within 12 months of therapy and 32% relapsed later than 12 months.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.88; P = .00271), Dr. Kuruvilla reported.

The benefit extended to “key subgroups” in the trial, he added, including those who were ineligible for autologous SCT, those with primary refractory disease, and those who were naive to brentuximab vedotin, with HRs of 0.61, 0.52, and 0.67, respectively.

Pembrolizumab was also associated with more durable responses versus brentuximab vedotin, according to the investigator.

The overall response rate was 65.6% and 54.2%, respectively, for pembrolizumab and brentuximab, although this difference of approximately 11 percentage points did not meet criteria for statistical significance, he said. Duration of response was 20.7 months or pembrolizumab and 13.8 months for brentuximab.

The rate of serious treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who reported grade 3-5 events occurring in 19.6% and 25.0% of the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms. Serious treatment-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm (16.2% vs. 10.5%) and there was one treatment-related death caused by pneumonia, seen in the pembrolizumab arm.

Pneumonitis occurred in 2.6% of the brentuximab-treated patients and in 10.8% of pembrolizumab-treated patients, of which half of cases were grade 3-4, according to the report.

In the pembrolizumab arm, pneumonitis was felt to be drug-related in 15 of 16 cases, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who added that 15 of 16 patients required corticosteroid therapy. “This has led to the resolution of the pneumonitis in 12 of 16 patients, with ongoing resolution in one further patient.”

Research funding for KEYNOTE-204 came from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Kuruvilla provided disclosures related to Merck and a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Roschewski said he had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Kuruvilla J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 8005.

Pembrolizumab treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus brentuximab vedotin in a randomized, phase 3 trial including patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, an investigator has reported.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in favor of pembrolizumab, according to the report on the KEYNOTE-204 trial, which included patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma who either had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) or were ineligible for autologous SCT.

The PFS improvement was “statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” said investigator John Kuruvilla, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

“This PFS benefit extended to key subgroups, including those ineligible for autologous transplant, patients with primary refractory disease, and patients who were brentuximab-vedotin naive,” Dr. Kuruvilla added in his presentation, which was part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pneumonitis was more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm, but “appeared in general to be quite well managed” among patients who experienced this adverse event, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who said that treatment with the programmed death–1 inhibitor should be considered “the preferred treatment option and the new standard of care” for patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after autologous SCT or are ineligible for it.

Although the pneumonitis findings are important to keep in mind, results of KEYNOTE-204 are indeed “practice defining” and immediately impactful, said Mark J. Roschewski, MD, clinical investigator in the lymphoid malignancies branch at the Center for Cancer Research, part of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

“I would select pembrolizumab over brentuximab for this patient population, particularly those that are refractory to chemotherapy,” he said in a commentary on the study also included in the virtual ASCO proceedings.

“There may be specific patient populations that I’d reconsider, such as those that might be at high risk for lung toxicity,” he added. “They may not be suitable for this, but it’s something to at least to be aware of.”

Although the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin has been considered the standard of care for patients with relapse after autologous SCT, there has historically been no standard of care for patients who are ineligible for transplant because of chemorefractory disease, advanced age, or comorbidities, Dr. Kuruvilla said in his presentation.

In the KEYNOTE-204 study, 304 patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or brentuximab at 1.8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The median age of patients was 36 years in the pembrolizumab arm and 35 years in the brentuximab vedotin arm, according to the report. Approximately 37% of the patients had previously undergone autologous SCT. About 40% had been refractory to frontline therapy, while 28% relapsed within 12 months of therapy and 32% relapsed later than 12 months.

Median PFS by blinded independent central review was 13.2 versus 8.3 months in the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.88; P = .00271), Dr. Kuruvilla reported.

The benefit extended to “key subgroups” in the trial, he added, including those who were ineligible for autologous SCT, those with primary refractory disease, and those who were naive to brentuximab vedotin, with HRs of 0.61, 0.52, and 0.67, respectively.

Pembrolizumab was also associated with more durable responses versus brentuximab vedotin, according to the investigator.

The overall response rate was 65.6% and 54.2%, respectively, for pembrolizumab and brentuximab, although this difference of approximately 11 percentage points did not meet criteria for statistical significance, he said. Duration of response was 20.7 months or pembrolizumab and 13.8 months for brentuximab.

The rate of serious treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who reported grade 3-5 events occurring in 19.6% and 25.0% of the pembrolizumab and brentuximab arms. Serious treatment-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the pembrolizumab arm (16.2% vs. 10.5%) and there was one treatment-related death caused by pneumonia, seen in the pembrolizumab arm.

Pneumonitis occurred in 2.6% of the brentuximab-treated patients and in 10.8% of pembrolizumab-treated patients, of which half of cases were grade 3-4, according to the report.

In the pembrolizumab arm, pneumonitis was felt to be drug-related in 15 of 16 cases, according to Dr. Kuruvilla, who added that 15 of 16 patients required corticosteroid therapy. “This has led to the resolution of the pneumonitis in 12 of 16 patients, with ongoing resolution in one further patient.”

Research funding for KEYNOTE-204 came from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Kuruvilla provided disclosures related to Merck and a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Roschewski said he had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Kuruvilla J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 8005.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.