User login
Managing trastuzumab deruxtecan adverse events in the real world
With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).
“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”
The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”
In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.
, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.
Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.
There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.
It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.
His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.
One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.
A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.
Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.
As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.
Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.
In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.
They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.
Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.
Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.
The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.
Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.
Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).
“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”
The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”
In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.
, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.
Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.
There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.
It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.
His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.
One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.
A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.
Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.
As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.
Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.
In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.
They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.
Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.
Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.
The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.
Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.
Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).
“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”
The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”
In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.
, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.
Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.
There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.
It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.
His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.
One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.
A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.
Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.
As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.
Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.
In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.
They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.
Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.
Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.
The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.
Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.
Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Whole breast radiation for breast cancer shown to be safe and effective
The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.
“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.
“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.
The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.
The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.
“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.
“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.
The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.
The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.
“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.
“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.
The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ASTRO 2022
Discontinuing immunotherapy: Is the infusion bag half empty or half full?
It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.
A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.
In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.
Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.
The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.
One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.
This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.
Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.
We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.
In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.
Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.
Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.
How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?
The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.
I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.
We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.
Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?
These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.
In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?
Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.
A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.
In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.
Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.
The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.
One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.
This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.
Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.
We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.
In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.
Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.
Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.
How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?
The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.
I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.
We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.
Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?
These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.
In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?
Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a “champagne problem” many of us have encountered over the past few years in the clinic.
A patient with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is fortunate enough to continue to do well for 2 years on ongoing pembrolizumab or perhaps pemetrexed and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy. The latest CT shows a residual but far smaller primary tumor than what she started with.
In this instance, you may be considering stopping treatment but are concerned about doing so with evidence of disease still present.
Clinical trials of immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have generally terminated treatment in nonprogressing patients after 2 years. We also know that some patients in early trials of immunotherapy stopped treatment after a fixed period of 1 or 2 years and continued to show no evidence of progression many years later.
The reason some patients experience this kind of success: Unlike the mechanism of action of conventional chemotherapy or targeted therapies, where ongoing treatment would be important to continue to exert an inhibitory effect, the active substrate of immunotherapy is the patient’s immune system, which can potentially have a self-sustaining efficacy beyond the stimulatory effect of the checkpoint inhibitor.
One trial directly addressed this question of stopping vs. continuing treatment in patients on immunotherapy. The CheckMate 153 trial, published in 2020, randomly assigned 252 previously treated patients who hadn’t demonstrated progression after 1 year on nivolumab to either discontinue nivolumab or continue nivolumab on an ongoing basis. The results were strongly in favor of ongoing therapy. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy: PFS of 24.7 months vs. 9.4 months and OS not reached vs. 32.5 months.
This finding is important, but there’s an important caveat. The study population included many heavily pretreated patients, but, in practice, immunotherapy has generally moved into the first-line setting, where we see dramatic responses in a significant subset of patients.
Even more recent data are emerging that may help us evaluate who will do well off therapy and who should continue treatment.
We now have a growing collection of long-term data on patients who are more likely to have good outcomes with immunotherapy, specifically those with high tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%), from the KEYNOTE-024 trial. In this study, 39 of 151 (25.8%) patients assigned to pembrolizumab completed the planned maximum of 2 years of treatment, among whom 82.1% achieved an objective response; but, only 10% (4 patients) achieved a complete response. The proportion of patients without progression and remaining off therapy wasn’t reported, but the OS rate 3 years after completing treatment was 81.4%.
In addition, restarting immunotherapy after discontinuing appears to be a moderately effective strategy. In the KEYNOTE-024 trial, 12 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab because of disease progression a median of 15.2 months after discontinuing pembrolizumab. In this small cohort, eight of these patients (66.7%) were alive at the data cutoff, and six (50%) achieved stable disease.
Recently, we received additional insight in the follow-up from two chemoimmunotherapy trials that have most shaped my practice for patients with advanced NSCLC and any level of PD-L1 expression. These are the KEYNOTE-189 trial of platinum-pemetrexed with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in those with nonsquamous NSCLC, and the KEYNOTE-407 trial of carboplatin-taxane with pembrolizumab vs. placebo in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has designated each as a “preferred regimen” for patients with advanced NSCLC.
Both regimens have demonstrated sustained efficacy benefits with prolonged follow-up, including significantly superior objective response rate, PFS, and OS with the addition of pembrolizumab. These findings merely cemented the role of these regimens in our practice, but the trials also reported on the cohort of patients who completed 35 cycles of treatment over 2 years then discontinued therapy. In both, the majority of patients showed an objective response (86% in KEYNOTE-189 and 90% in KEYNOTE-407), with most patients alive at 3 years after 2 years of treatment (71.9% in KEYNOTE-189 and 69.5% in KEYNOTE-407). In addition, the proportion of patients alive without disease progression or subsequent therapy was notable – 40.4% in KEYNOTE-189 and 43.6% KEYNOTE-407.
How should we interpret these data for the patient who is in the exam room with us?
The short answer is that we don’t know. I see this as a half-empty, half-full conundrum.
I’m disappointed that more patients who responded for 2 years will experience disease progression in the 1-3 years that follow. This signals that their immune systems have not perpetuated their initial response over the long-term. But these patients may have demonstrated disease progression even if they had continued therapy.
We also know that some patients can be rechallenged and will respond again. Some of these patients will show stable disease, whereas others will progress with repeat treatment. I would love to be able to better predict which patients are destined to do well without treatment vs. those who benefit from treatment beyond 2 years.
Might the level of PD-L1 expression tell us? Can PET imaging discriminate those with residual hypermetabolism who may need continued treatment from those with no residual uptake who could be spared it? Would serial measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in responding patients identify when they have achieved a point of diminishing returns, potentially indicating that some can safely discontinue treatment after 2 years, whereas others need to continue to suppress on prolonged maintenance therapy?
These questions have yet to be studied systematically. In the meantime, I take an individualized approach with my patients facing this decision. Some have experienced escalating arthralgias and myalgias, cost concerns, or other issues related to immunotherapy that may dissuade us from continuing treatment. But several others have been grateful to continue with their treatment, hesitant to do anything that could change the path of their disease.
In my patients who tolerate therapy well, I’m more worried about potential undertreatment than overtreatment. I tend to favor having my patients continue therapy in the absence of problematic toxicity or practical challenges. There is certainly room for debate here while we await data to better guide these decisions. How do you approach these patients?
Dr. West is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Care, Duarte, Calif. He reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How AI is, or will soon be, relevant in radiation oncology
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
FROM ASTRO 2022
Chronic stress, especially race related, may hasten cancer death
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 (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 (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 (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.
FROM SSM–POPULATION HEALTH
Third COVID booster benefits cancer patients
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.
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.
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.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Findings may be practice changing for early breast cancer patients
Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.
No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.
Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.
No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.
Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.
“They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.
“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.
Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.
The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).
“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.
No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.
FROM ASTRO 2022
Study affirms better breast cancer outcomes when chemo comes first
New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.
The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.
“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.
In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.
The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.
The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.
The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.
The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.
The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.
Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.
New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.
The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.
“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.
In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.
The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.
The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.
The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.
The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.
The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.
Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.
New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.
The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.
“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.
In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.
The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.
The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.
The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.
The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.
The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.
Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Cancer as a full contact sport
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cost paramount when choosing metastatic breast cancer treatment
While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.
Notably, the authors found that
Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.
“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.
Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.
The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.
On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.
Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.
But the models did show considerable differences in costs.
The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.
For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.
For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.
Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”
In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.
“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.
The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.
As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.
The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.
Notably, the authors found that
Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.
“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.
Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.
The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.
On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.
Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.
But the models did show considerable differences in costs.
The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.
For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.
For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.
Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”
In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.
“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.
The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.
As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.
The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.
Notably, the authors found that
Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.
“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.
Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.
The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.
On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.
Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.
But the models did show considerable differences in costs.
The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.
For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.
For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.
Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”
In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.
“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.
The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.
As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.
The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY