Melanoma

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

A third dose of coronavirus booster vaccine is effective in reducing death and hospitalization among people with cancer, though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.

People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.

The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.

Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.

The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.

“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.

Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.

The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.

The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).

Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).

Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).

Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is most commonly used for the surgical management of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) in high-risk locations. The ability for 100% margin evaluation with MMS also has shown lower recurrence rates compared with wide local excision for less common and/or more aggressive tumors. However, there is a lack of standardization on initial and subsequent margin size when treating these less common skin tumors, such as dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), and sebaceous carcinoma.

Because Mohs surgeons must balance normal tissue preservation with the importance of tumor clearance in the context of comprehensive margin control, we aimed to assess the practice patterns of Mohs surgeons regarding margin size for these unique tumors. The average margin size for each Mohs layer has been reported to be 1 to 3 mm for BCC compared with 3 to 6 mm or larger for other skin cancers, such as melanoma in situ (MIS).^1-3 We hypothesized that the initial margin size would vary among surgeons and likely be greater for more aggressive and rarer malignancies as well as for lesions on the trunk and extremities.

Methods

A descriptive survey was created using SurveyMonkey and distributed to members of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). Survey participants and their responses were anonymous. Demographic information on survey participants was collected in addition to initial and subsequent MMS margin size for DFSP, AFX, MIS, invasive melanoma, sebaceous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), poorly differentiated SCC, Merkel cell carcinoma, extramammary Paget disease, leiomyosarcoma, and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma. Survey participants were asked to choose from a range of margin sizes: 1 to 3 mm, 4 to 6 mm, 7 to 9 mm, and greater than 9 mm. This study was approved by the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center (Dallas, Texas) institutional review board.

Results

Eighty-seven respondents from the ACMS listserve completed the survey (response rate <10%). Of these, 58 respondents (66.7%) reported practicing for more than 5 years, and 58 (66.7%) were male. Practice setting was primarily private/community (71.3% [62/87]), and survey respondents were located across the United States. More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the head and neck in their respective practices: DFSP (80.9% [55/68]), AFX (95.6% [65/68]), MIS (67.7% [46/68]), sebaceous carcinoma (92.7% [63/68]), MAC (83.8% [57/68]), poorly differentiated SCC (97.1% [66/68]), and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (51.5% [35/68]). More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the trunk and extremities: DFSP (90.3% [47/52]), AFX (86.4% [45/52]), MIS (55.8% [29/52]), sebaceous carcinoma (80.8% [42/52]), MAC (73.1% [38/52]), poorly differentiated SCC (94.2% [49/52]), and extramammary Paget disease (53.9% [28/52]). Invasive melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma were overall less commonly treated.

In general, respondent Mohs surgeons were more likely to take larger initial and subsequent margins for tumors treated on the trunk and extremities compared with the head and neck (Table). In addition, initial margin size often was larger than the 1- to 3-mm margin commonly used in Mohs surgery for BCCs and less aggressive SCCs (Table). A larger initial margin size (>9 mm) and subsequent margin size (4–6 mm) was more commonly reported for certain tumors known to be more aggressive and/or have extensive subclinical extension, such as DFSP and invasive melanoma. Of note, most respondents performed 4- to 6-mm margins (37/67 [55.2%]) for poorly differentiated SCC. Overall, there was a high range of margin size variability among Mohs surgeons for these unique and/or more aggressive skin tumors.

Comment

Given that no guidelines exist on margins with MMS for less commonly treated skin tumors, this study helps give Mohs surgeons perspective on current practice patterns for both initial and subsequent Mohs margin sizes. High margin-size variability among Mohs surgeons is expected, as surgeons also need to account for high-risk features of the tumor or specific locations where tissue sparing is critical. Overall, Mohs surgeons are more likely to take larger initial margins for these less common skin tumors compared with BCCs or SCCs. Initial margin size was consistently larger on the trunk and extremities where tissue sparing often is less critical.

Our survey was limited by a small sample size and incomplete response of the ACMS membership. In addition, most respondents practiced in a private/community setting, which may have led to bias, as academic centers may manage rare malignancies more commonly and/or have increased access to immunostains and multispecialty care. Future registries for rare skin malignancies will hopefully be developed that will allow for further consensus on standardized margins. Additional studies on the average number of stages required to clear these less common tumors also are warranted.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is most commonly used for the surgical management of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) in high-risk locations. The ability for 100% margin evaluation with MMS also has shown lower recurrence rates compared with wide local excision for less common and/or more aggressive tumors. However, there is a lack of standardization on initial and subsequent margin size when treating these less common skin tumors, such as dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), and sebaceous carcinoma.

Because Mohs surgeons must balance normal tissue preservation with the importance of tumor clearance in the context of comprehensive margin control, we aimed to assess the practice patterns of Mohs surgeons regarding margin size for these unique tumors. The average margin size for each Mohs layer has been reported to be 1 to 3 mm for BCC compared with 3 to 6 mm or larger for other skin cancers, such as melanoma in situ (MIS).^1-3 We hypothesized that the initial margin size would vary among surgeons and likely be greater for more aggressive and rarer malignancies as well as for lesions on the trunk and extremities.

Methods

A descriptive survey was created using SurveyMonkey and distributed to members of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). Survey participants and their responses were anonymous. Demographic information on survey participants was collected in addition to initial and subsequent MMS margin size for DFSP, AFX, MIS, invasive melanoma, sebaceous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), poorly differentiated SCC, Merkel cell carcinoma, extramammary Paget disease, leiomyosarcoma, and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma. Survey participants were asked to choose from a range of margin sizes: 1 to 3 mm, 4 to 6 mm, 7 to 9 mm, and greater than 9 mm. This study was approved by the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center (Dallas, Texas) institutional review board.

Results

Eighty-seven respondents from the ACMS listserve completed the survey (response rate <10%). Of these, 58 respondents (66.7%) reported practicing for more than 5 years, and 58 (66.7%) were male. Practice setting was primarily private/community (71.3% [62/87]), and survey respondents were located across the United States. More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the head and neck in their respective practices: DFSP (80.9% [55/68]), AFX (95.6% [65/68]), MIS (67.7% [46/68]), sebaceous carcinoma (92.7% [63/68]), MAC (83.8% [57/68]), poorly differentiated SCC (97.1% [66/68]), and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (51.5% [35/68]). More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the trunk and extremities: DFSP (90.3% [47/52]), AFX (86.4% [45/52]), MIS (55.8% [29/52]), sebaceous carcinoma (80.8% [42/52]), MAC (73.1% [38/52]), poorly differentiated SCC (94.2% [49/52]), and extramammary Paget disease (53.9% [28/52]). Invasive melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma were overall less commonly treated.

In general, respondent Mohs surgeons were more likely to take larger initial and subsequent margins for tumors treated on the trunk and extremities compared with the head and neck (Table). In addition, initial margin size often was larger than the 1- to 3-mm margin commonly used in Mohs surgery for BCCs and less aggressive SCCs (Table). A larger initial margin size (>9 mm) and subsequent margin size (4–6 mm) was more commonly reported for certain tumors known to be more aggressive and/or have extensive subclinical extension, such as DFSP and invasive melanoma. Of note, most respondents performed 4- to 6-mm margins (37/67 [55.2%]) for poorly differentiated SCC. Overall, there was a high range of margin size variability among Mohs surgeons for these unique and/or more aggressive skin tumors.

Comment

Given that no guidelines exist on margins with MMS for less commonly treated skin tumors, this study helps give Mohs surgeons perspective on current practice patterns for both initial and subsequent Mohs margin sizes. High margin-size variability among Mohs surgeons is expected, as surgeons also need to account for high-risk features of the tumor or specific locations where tissue sparing is critical. Overall, Mohs surgeons are more likely to take larger initial margins for these less common skin tumors compared with BCCs or SCCs. Initial margin size was consistently larger on the trunk and extremities where tissue sparing often is less critical.

Our survey was limited by a small sample size and incomplete response of the ACMS membership. In addition, most respondents practiced in a private/community setting, which may have led to bias, as academic centers may manage rare malignancies more commonly and/or have increased access to immunostains and multispecialty care. Future registries for rare skin malignancies will hopefully be developed that will allow for further consensus on standardized margins. Additional studies on the average number of stages required to clear these less common tumors also are warranted.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is most commonly used for the surgical management of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) in high-risk locations. The ability for 100% margin evaluation with MMS also has shown lower recurrence rates compared with wide local excision for less common and/or more aggressive tumors. However, there is a lack of standardization on initial and subsequent margin size when treating these less common skin tumors, such as dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), and sebaceous carcinoma.

Because Mohs surgeons must balance normal tissue preservation with the importance of tumor clearance in the context of comprehensive margin control, we aimed to assess the practice patterns of Mohs surgeons regarding margin size for these unique tumors. The average margin size for each Mohs layer has been reported to be 1 to 3 mm for BCC compared with 3 to 6 mm or larger for other skin cancers, such as melanoma in situ (MIS).^1-3 We hypothesized that the initial margin size would vary among surgeons and likely be greater for more aggressive and rarer malignancies as well as for lesions on the trunk and extremities.

Methods

A descriptive survey was created using SurveyMonkey and distributed to members of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). Survey participants and their responses were anonymous. Demographic information on survey participants was collected in addition to initial and subsequent MMS margin size for DFSP, AFX, MIS, invasive melanoma, sebaceous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), poorly differentiated SCC, Merkel cell carcinoma, extramammary Paget disease, leiomyosarcoma, and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma. Survey participants were asked to choose from a range of margin sizes: 1 to 3 mm, 4 to 6 mm, 7 to 9 mm, and greater than 9 mm. This study was approved by the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center (Dallas, Texas) institutional review board.

Results

Eighty-seven respondents from the ACMS listserve completed the survey (response rate <10%). Of these, 58 respondents (66.7%) reported practicing for more than 5 years, and 58 (66.7%) were male. Practice setting was primarily private/community (71.3% [62/87]), and survey respondents were located across the United States. More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the head and neck in their respective practices: DFSP (80.9% [55/68]), AFX (95.6% [65/68]), MIS (67.7% [46/68]), sebaceous carcinoma (92.7% [63/68]), MAC (83.8% [57/68]), poorly differentiated SCC (97.1% [66/68]), and endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (51.5% [35/68]). More than 50% of survey respondents treated the following tumors on the trunk and extremities: DFSP (90.3% [47/52]), AFX (86.4% [45/52]), MIS (55.8% [29/52]), sebaceous carcinoma (80.8% [42/52]), MAC (73.1% [38/52]), poorly differentiated SCC (94.2% [49/52]), and extramammary Paget disease (53.9% [28/52]). Invasive melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma were overall less commonly treated.

In general, respondent Mohs surgeons were more likely to take larger initial and subsequent margins for tumors treated on the trunk and extremities compared with the head and neck (Table). In addition, initial margin size often was larger than the 1- to 3-mm margin commonly used in Mohs surgery for BCCs and less aggressive SCCs (Table). A larger initial margin size (>9 mm) and subsequent margin size (4–6 mm) was more commonly reported for certain tumors known to be more aggressive and/or have extensive subclinical extension, such as DFSP and invasive melanoma. Of note, most respondents performed 4- to 6-mm margins (37/67 [55.2%]) for poorly differentiated SCC. Overall, there was a high range of margin size variability among Mohs surgeons for these unique and/or more aggressive skin tumors.

Comment

Given that no guidelines exist on margins with MMS for less commonly treated skin tumors, this study helps give Mohs surgeons perspective on current practice patterns for both initial and subsequent Mohs margin sizes. High margin-size variability among Mohs surgeons is expected, as surgeons also need to account for high-risk features of the tumor or specific locations where tissue sparing is critical. Overall, Mohs surgeons are more likely to take larger initial margins for these less common skin tumors compared with BCCs or SCCs. Initial margin size was consistently larger on the trunk and extremities where tissue sparing often is less critical.

Our survey was limited by a small sample size and incomplete response of the ACMS membership. In addition, most respondents practiced in a private/community setting, which may have led to bias, as academic centers may manage rare malignancies more commonly and/or have increased access to immunostains and multispecialty care. Future registries for rare skin malignancies will hopefully be developed that will allow for further consensus on standardized margins. Additional studies on the average number of stages required to clear these less common tumors also are warranted.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

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

Among patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIA early-stage melanoma metastases, the presence of sentinel node (SN) tumor deposits of 0.3 mm or higher is associated with a greater risk of disease progression, and these individuals may be well served by adjuvant systemic therapy. It suggests that those with smaller tumor deposits can be managed in a similar way to AJCC IB patients who are SN negative.

Those are the conclusions from a new prospective analysis of melanoma patients drawn from nine high-volume cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and North America. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Classification of stage III melanoma is difficult since it comprises a heterogeneous group of patients with divergent prognoses. That complexity has resulted in four subcategories of stage III, ranging from high-risk primaries with synchronous nodal metastases (IIID) to patients with early-stage primary tumors with low burden at the SN (IIIA). The latter patients have excellent prognoses, with close to 90% 5-year survival. In fact, they have a better survival rate than some stage II patients with SN-negative, high-risk primary tumors (AJCC IIB-IIC).

Recent phase 3 trials have produced standardized protocols for treating stage III patients with intermediate to high risk (IIIB-IIID), but there is little evidence for the best approach to treat stage IIIA.

To fill that gap, the researchers examined data from 3,607 patients with low-risk primaries, defined as AJCC pT1b-pT2a. About 11.3% were AJCC IIIA and the rest were AJCC IB with no SN tumors: They served as a comparison group. The median follow-up was 34 months.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis that identified 0.3 mm as the optimal size to stratify outcomes. Among those with SN tumors 0.3 mm or higher, 5-year disease-specific survival was 80.3%. For those with smaller tumors, the rate was 94.1% (hazard ratio, 1.26; P < .0001). For distant metastasis-free survival the rates were 72.4% and 92.1% (HR, 1.27; P < .0001). Survival rates were similar between AJCC IB and low-risk AJCC IIIA patients.

The researchers found no differences between the AJCC IB patients and low-risk (< 0.3 mm) AJCC IIIA patients.

Other factors were associated with the presence of high-risk SN tumor size, including male sex (chi-squared, 4.97; df, 1; P = .034), and mitotic rates higher than 1/mm² (chi-squared, 4.92; df, 1; P = .035), although only mitotic rate remained a statistically significant risk factor after multivariate analysis (HR, 1.59; P = .050).

Where extracapsular spread was present, the median maximum tumor deposit size was 3.0 mm versus 0.5 mm in the absence of ECS (Kruskal-Wallis; F, 17.78; df, 1; P < .0001). High-risk nodal disease trended towards an association with N2a stage nodal metastases, compared with N1a stage disease (22.6% vs. 13.8%; chi-squared, 4.31; df, 1; P = .052).

The results of the study suggest that guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence could be missing up to one-third of patients with stage IIIA disease with high risk of distance recurrence or death, who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. “We suggest that early-stage, AJCC IIIA patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension [of at least] 0.3 mm should be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy or enrollment into a clinical trial, whereas patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension less than 0.3 mm can be managed in a similar fashion to their SN-negative, AJCC IB counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Eight coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies; the other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.

Among patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIA early-stage melanoma metastases, the presence of sentinel node (SN) tumor deposits of 0.3 mm or higher is associated with a greater risk of disease progression, and these individuals may be well served by adjuvant systemic therapy. It suggests that those with smaller tumor deposits can be managed in a similar way to AJCC IB patients who are SN negative.

Those are the conclusions from a new prospective analysis of melanoma patients drawn from nine high-volume cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and North America. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Classification of stage III melanoma is difficult since it comprises a heterogeneous group of patients with divergent prognoses. That complexity has resulted in four subcategories of stage III, ranging from high-risk primaries with synchronous nodal metastases (IIID) to patients with early-stage primary tumors with low burden at the SN (IIIA). The latter patients have excellent prognoses, with close to 90% 5-year survival. In fact, they have a better survival rate than some stage II patients with SN-negative, high-risk primary tumors (AJCC IIB-IIC).

Recent phase 3 trials have produced standardized protocols for treating stage III patients with intermediate to high risk (IIIB-IIID), but there is little evidence for the best approach to treat stage IIIA.

To fill that gap, the researchers examined data from 3,607 patients with low-risk primaries, defined as AJCC pT1b-pT2a. About 11.3% were AJCC IIIA and the rest were AJCC IB with no SN tumors: They served as a comparison group. The median follow-up was 34 months.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis that identified 0.3 mm as the optimal size to stratify outcomes. Among those with SN tumors 0.3 mm or higher, 5-year disease-specific survival was 80.3%. For those with smaller tumors, the rate was 94.1% (hazard ratio, 1.26; P < .0001). For distant metastasis-free survival the rates were 72.4% and 92.1% (HR, 1.27; P < .0001). Survival rates were similar between AJCC IB and low-risk AJCC IIIA patients.

The researchers found no differences between the AJCC IB patients and low-risk (< 0.3 mm) AJCC IIIA patients.

Other factors were associated with the presence of high-risk SN tumor size, including male sex (chi-squared, 4.97; df, 1; P = .034), and mitotic rates higher than 1/mm² (chi-squared, 4.92; df, 1; P = .035), although only mitotic rate remained a statistically significant risk factor after multivariate analysis (HR, 1.59; P = .050).

Where extracapsular spread was present, the median maximum tumor deposit size was 3.0 mm versus 0.5 mm in the absence of ECS (Kruskal-Wallis; F, 17.78; df, 1; P < .0001). High-risk nodal disease trended towards an association with N2a stage nodal metastases, compared with N1a stage disease (22.6% vs. 13.8%; chi-squared, 4.31; df, 1; P = .052).

The results of the study suggest that guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence could be missing up to one-third of patients with stage IIIA disease with high risk of distance recurrence or death, who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. “We suggest that early-stage, AJCC IIIA patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension [of at least] 0.3 mm should be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy or enrollment into a clinical trial, whereas patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension less than 0.3 mm can be managed in a similar fashion to their SN-negative, AJCC IB counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Eight coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies; the other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.

Among patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIA early-stage melanoma metastases, the presence of sentinel node (SN) tumor deposits of 0.3 mm or higher is associated with a greater risk of disease progression, and these individuals may be well served by adjuvant systemic therapy. It suggests that those with smaller tumor deposits can be managed in a similar way to AJCC IB patients who are SN negative.

Those are the conclusions from a new prospective analysis of melanoma patients drawn from nine high-volume cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and North America. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Classification of stage III melanoma is difficult since it comprises a heterogeneous group of patients with divergent prognoses. That complexity has resulted in four subcategories of stage III, ranging from high-risk primaries with synchronous nodal metastases (IIID) to patients with early-stage primary tumors with low burden at the SN (IIIA). The latter patients have excellent prognoses, with close to 90% 5-year survival. In fact, they have a better survival rate than some stage II patients with SN-negative, high-risk primary tumors (AJCC IIB-IIC).

Recent phase 3 trials have produced standardized protocols for treating stage III patients with intermediate to high risk (IIIB-IIID), but there is little evidence for the best approach to treat stage IIIA.

To fill that gap, the researchers examined data from 3,607 patients with low-risk primaries, defined as AJCC pT1b-pT2a. About 11.3% were AJCC IIIA and the rest were AJCC IB with no SN tumors: They served as a comparison group. The median follow-up was 34 months.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis that identified 0.3 mm as the optimal size to stratify outcomes. Among those with SN tumors 0.3 mm or higher, 5-year disease-specific survival was 80.3%. For those with smaller tumors, the rate was 94.1% (hazard ratio, 1.26; P < .0001). For distant metastasis-free survival the rates were 72.4% and 92.1% (HR, 1.27; P < .0001). Survival rates were similar between AJCC IB and low-risk AJCC IIIA patients.

The researchers found no differences between the AJCC IB patients and low-risk (< 0.3 mm) AJCC IIIA patients.

Other factors were associated with the presence of high-risk SN tumor size, including male sex (chi-squared, 4.97; df, 1; P = .034), and mitotic rates higher than 1/mm² (chi-squared, 4.92; df, 1; P = .035), although only mitotic rate remained a statistically significant risk factor after multivariate analysis (HR, 1.59; P = .050).

Where extracapsular spread was present, the median maximum tumor deposit size was 3.0 mm versus 0.5 mm in the absence of ECS (Kruskal-Wallis; F, 17.78; df, 1; P < .0001). High-risk nodal disease trended towards an association with N2a stage nodal metastases, compared with N1a stage disease (22.6% vs. 13.8%; chi-squared, 4.31; df, 1; P = .052).

The results of the study suggest that guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence could be missing up to one-third of patients with stage IIIA disease with high risk of distance recurrence or death, who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. “We suggest that early-stage, AJCC IIIA patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension [of at least] 0.3 mm should be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy or enrollment into a clinical trial, whereas patients with micrometastases of maximum tumor dimension less than 0.3 mm can be managed in a similar fashion to their SN-negative, AJCC IB counterparts,” the authors wrote.

Eight coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies; the other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.