User login
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Robotic Mastectomy Is Feasible, But Is It Safe?
a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.
Robotic Mastectomy
The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.
In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.
The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
Unanswered Questions
In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.
In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.
The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.
According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”
Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.
Robotic Mastectomy
The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.
In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.
The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
Unanswered Questions
In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.
In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.
The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.
According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”
Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.
Robotic Mastectomy
The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.
In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.
The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
Unanswered Questions
In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.
In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.
The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.
According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”
Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Dana-Farber Moves to Retract, Correct Dozens of Cancer Papers Amid Allegations
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiation Oncologists Fight for Payment Reform Amid Cuts
The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services.
Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.
Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle.
The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.
To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered.
ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services.
Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.
Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle.
The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.
To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered.
ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services.
Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.
Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle.
The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.
To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered.
ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Updates on Investigational Treatments for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
Results from TROPION-Breast01, EMBER, and OPERA were recently presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2023.
A number of exciting updates on systemic therapies for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer 2023, including novel endocrine agents and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). We have highlighted 3 key studies, including the phase III study of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), the new trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2)-directed ADC; the phase I study of imlunestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD); and phase I/II data evaluating OP-1250, a small molecule oral complete estrogen receptor antagonist (CERAN) and SERD.
TROPION-Breast01: Dato-DXd Improves Progression-Free Survival Compared With Systemic Chemotherapy
Study synopsis
Dato-DXd, an investigational TROP2 ADC, resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with investigator’s choice chemotherapy (ICC) in individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a randomized phase III trial.
Participants in the study had progressed on or were not eligible for endocrine therapy and had received 1 or 2 prior lines of systemic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either 6 mg/kg of Dato-DXd once every 3 weeks (n=365; median age 56), or ICC with eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine (n=367; median age 54) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Blinded independent review assessed PFS and overall survival. Among the results:
In the blinded independent review, PFS was 6.9 months for Dato-DXd and 4.9 months for ICC (HR 0.63 [95% CI: 0.52, 0.76]; p<0.0001)
At 6 months, 53% of participants receiving Dato-DXd achieved PFS, compared with 39% in the systemic chemotherapy contingent
In the Dato-DXd group, treatment-related adverse events led to dose reductions in 23% and discontinuation in 3% of patients
In the systemic chemotherapy cohort, the dose reduction and discontinuation rates were 32% and 3%, respectively
At the time data were reported at ESMO, overall survival data were not mature but trending favorably for Dato-DXd
The investigators concluded that Dato-DXd is a promising novel treatment option for individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior chemotherapy.
EMBER: Imlunestrant Alone or With a Kinase Inhibitor: Early Safety and Efficacy Results Are Encouraging
Study synopsis
The SERD imlunestrant—used either alone or combined with a kinase inhibitor—showed favorable efficacy in individuals with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to the first set of clinical data reported from the phase 1a/b EMBER study.
Key eligibility criteria for phase 1b enrollment included prior sensitivity to endocrine therapy, ≤2 prior therapies, and a PIK3CA mutation (alpelisib arm only). Prior therapies included endocrine therapy (100%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (100%), hormonal therapy with fulvestrant (35%), and chemotherapy (17%). At baseline, 46% of patients had visceral disease and 46% had an ESR1 mutation. Participants received imlunestrant alone (n=114) or with the kinase inhibitors everolimus (n=42) or alpelisib (n=21). Investigators assessed each regimen’s safety profile, as well as the objective response rate and clinical benefit rate.
The safety profile of each regimen was similar to those seen with everolimus and alpelisib alone. No cardiac or ocular toxicities were observed. Regarding grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events:
The imlunestrant alone group experienced fatigue (2%) and neutropenia (2%)
The imlunestrant + everolimus group experienced hypertriglyceridemia (5%) and aspartate aminotransferase increase (5%)
The imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort experienced rash (43%) and hyperglycemia (10%).
In the imlunestrant alone group, 2% of individuals had their doses reduced due to adverse events; none discontinued treatment
In the imlunestrant + everolimus cohort, 12% of patients experienced dose reduction due to everolimus and 2% due to both medications; 2% discontinued treatment due to everolimus
In the imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort, 24% of patients experienced dose reduction due to alpelisib and 14% due to both medications; 29% discontinued treatment due to alpelisib
Regarding efficacy:
The objective response rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 9%, 21%, and 50%, respectively
The clinical benefit rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 42%, 62%, and 62%, respectively
Investigators concluded that imlunestrant used alone or in combination with 1 of the 2 kinase inhibitors demonstrated robust efficacy in individuals with pretreated, ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.
OPERA: OP-1250 Paired With a CDK4/6 Inhibitor: Anti-Tumor Activity With No Dose-Limiting Toxicities
Study synopsis
OP-1250, a CERAN and SERD, continues to show promising results when paired with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The combination of OP-1250 and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib appears to be well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to each drug when used alone, according to a phase I/II study involving 20 individuals with pretreated ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Participants had advanced or metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer that progressed on ≤1 lines of endocrine therapy. Fourteen participants had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, including 11 who were previously treated with palbociclib. Patients received escalating doses of OP-1250 with 125 mg of palbociclib orally daily for 21 of 28 days. OP-1250 doses were 30 mg (n=3), 60 mg (n=3), 90 mg (n=3), and 120 mg (n=11). Investigators assessed pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, safety, and efficacy. Among the results observed to date:
Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 55% of participants
There were no grade 4 treatment-related adverse events and no dose-limiting toxicities
OP-1250 exposure yielded similar results to what was seen in the previous monotherapy study
Palbociclib exposure was comparable to published monotherapy data when combined with OP-1250 for all dosages
Investigators observed antitumor activity, including partial responses
Researchers concluded that OP-1250 does not affect the pharmacokinetics of palbociclib, and there do not appear to be drug-drug interactions. Tumor response to this combination was encouraging and requires continued investigation.
Conclusions
These 3 studies presented at ESMO 2023 highlight exciting novel therapies for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-low, and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The EMBER and OPERA updates provide support for the safety and efficacy of these novel endocrine agents in combination with kinase inhibitors and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively, in patients with endocrine-sensitive disease, while the TROPION-01 study demonstrates the encouraging efficacy and safety of a second TROP-2-directed ADC in a more heavily pretreated population.
Results from TROPION-Breast01, EMBER, and OPERA were recently presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2023.
A number of exciting updates on systemic therapies for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer 2023, including novel endocrine agents and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). We have highlighted 3 key studies, including the phase III study of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), the new trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2)-directed ADC; the phase I study of imlunestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD); and phase I/II data evaluating OP-1250, a small molecule oral complete estrogen receptor antagonist (CERAN) and SERD.
TROPION-Breast01: Dato-DXd Improves Progression-Free Survival Compared With Systemic Chemotherapy
Study synopsis
Dato-DXd, an investigational TROP2 ADC, resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with investigator’s choice chemotherapy (ICC) in individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a randomized phase III trial.
Participants in the study had progressed on or were not eligible for endocrine therapy and had received 1 or 2 prior lines of systemic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either 6 mg/kg of Dato-DXd once every 3 weeks (n=365; median age 56), or ICC with eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine (n=367; median age 54) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Blinded independent review assessed PFS and overall survival. Among the results:
In the blinded independent review, PFS was 6.9 months for Dato-DXd and 4.9 months for ICC (HR 0.63 [95% CI: 0.52, 0.76]; p<0.0001)
At 6 months, 53% of participants receiving Dato-DXd achieved PFS, compared with 39% in the systemic chemotherapy contingent
In the Dato-DXd group, treatment-related adverse events led to dose reductions in 23% and discontinuation in 3% of patients
In the systemic chemotherapy cohort, the dose reduction and discontinuation rates were 32% and 3%, respectively
At the time data were reported at ESMO, overall survival data were not mature but trending favorably for Dato-DXd
The investigators concluded that Dato-DXd is a promising novel treatment option for individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior chemotherapy.
EMBER: Imlunestrant Alone or With a Kinase Inhibitor: Early Safety and Efficacy Results Are Encouraging
Study synopsis
The SERD imlunestrant—used either alone or combined with a kinase inhibitor—showed favorable efficacy in individuals with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to the first set of clinical data reported from the phase 1a/b EMBER study.
Key eligibility criteria for phase 1b enrollment included prior sensitivity to endocrine therapy, ≤2 prior therapies, and a PIK3CA mutation (alpelisib arm only). Prior therapies included endocrine therapy (100%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (100%), hormonal therapy with fulvestrant (35%), and chemotherapy (17%). At baseline, 46% of patients had visceral disease and 46% had an ESR1 mutation. Participants received imlunestrant alone (n=114) or with the kinase inhibitors everolimus (n=42) or alpelisib (n=21). Investigators assessed each regimen’s safety profile, as well as the objective response rate and clinical benefit rate.
The safety profile of each regimen was similar to those seen with everolimus and alpelisib alone. No cardiac or ocular toxicities were observed. Regarding grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events:
The imlunestrant alone group experienced fatigue (2%) and neutropenia (2%)
The imlunestrant + everolimus group experienced hypertriglyceridemia (5%) and aspartate aminotransferase increase (5%)
The imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort experienced rash (43%) and hyperglycemia (10%).
In the imlunestrant alone group, 2% of individuals had their doses reduced due to adverse events; none discontinued treatment
In the imlunestrant + everolimus cohort, 12% of patients experienced dose reduction due to everolimus and 2% due to both medications; 2% discontinued treatment due to everolimus
In the imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort, 24% of patients experienced dose reduction due to alpelisib and 14% due to both medications; 29% discontinued treatment due to alpelisib
Regarding efficacy:
The objective response rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 9%, 21%, and 50%, respectively
The clinical benefit rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 42%, 62%, and 62%, respectively
Investigators concluded that imlunestrant used alone or in combination with 1 of the 2 kinase inhibitors demonstrated robust efficacy in individuals with pretreated, ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.
OPERA: OP-1250 Paired With a CDK4/6 Inhibitor: Anti-Tumor Activity With No Dose-Limiting Toxicities
Study synopsis
OP-1250, a CERAN and SERD, continues to show promising results when paired with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The combination of OP-1250 and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib appears to be well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to each drug when used alone, according to a phase I/II study involving 20 individuals with pretreated ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Participants had advanced or metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer that progressed on ≤1 lines of endocrine therapy. Fourteen participants had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, including 11 who were previously treated with palbociclib. Patients received escalating doses of OP-1250 with 125 mg of palbociclib orally daily for 21 of 28 days. OP-1250 doses were 30 mg (n=3), 60 mg (n=3), 90 mg (n=3), and 120 mg (n=11). Investigators assessed pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, safety, and efficacy. Among the results observed to date:
Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 55% of participants
There were no grade 4 treatment-related adverse events and no dose-limiting toxicities
OP-1250 exposure yielded similar results to what was seen in the previous monotherapy study
Palbociclib exposure was comparable to published monotherapy data when combined with OP-1250 for all dosages
Investigators observed antitumor activity, including partial responses
Researchers concluded that OP-1250 does not affect the pharmacokinetics of palbociclib, and there do not appear to be drug-drug interactions. Tumor response to this combination was encouraging and requires continued investigation.
Conclusions
These 3 studies presented at ESMO 2023 highlight exciting novel therapies for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-low, and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The EMBER and OPERA updates provide support for the safety and efficacy of these novel endocrine agents in combination with kinase inhibitors and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively, in patients with endocrine-sensitive disease, while the TROPION-01 study demonstrates the encouraging efficacy and safety of a second TROP-2-directed ADC in a more heavily pretreated population.
Results from TROPION-Breast01, EMBER, and OPERA were recently presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2023.
A number of exciting updates on systemic therapies for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer 2023, including novel endocrine agents and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). We have highlighted 3 key studies, including the phase III study of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), the new trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2)-directed ADC; the phase I study of imlunestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD); and phase I/II data evaluating OP-1250, a small molecule oral complete estrogen receptor antagonist (CERAN) and SERD.
TROPION-Breast01: Dato-DXd Improves Progression-Free Survival Compared With Systemic Chemotherapy
Study synopsis
Dato-DXd, an investigational TROP2 ADC, resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with investigator’s choice chemotherapy (ICC) in individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a randomized phase III trial.
Participants in the study had progressed on or were not eligible for endocrine therapy and had received 1 or 2 prior lines of systemic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either 6 mg/kg of Dato-DXd once every 3 weeks (n=365; median age 56), or ICC with eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine (n=367; median age 54) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Blinded independent review assessed PFS and overall survival. Among the results:
In the blinded independent review, PFS was 6.9 months for Dato-DXd and 4.9 months for ICC (HR 0.63 [95% CI: 0.52, 0.76]; p<0.0001)
At 6 months, 53% of participants receiving Dato-DXd achieved PFS, compared with 39% in the systemic chemotherapy contingent
In the Dato-DXd group, treatment-related adverse events led to dose reductions in 23% and discontinuation in 3% of patients
In the systemic chemotherapy cohort, the dose reduction and discontinuation rates were 32% and 3%, respectively
At the time data were reported at ESMO, overall survival data were not mature but trending favorably for Dato-DXd
The investigators concluded that Dato-DXd is a promising novel treatment option for individuals with inoperable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-low or HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior chemotherapy.
EMBER: Imlunestrant Alone or With a Kinase Inhibitor: Early Safety and Efficacy Results Are Encouraging
Study synopsis
The SERD imlunestrant—used either alone or combined with a kinase inhibitor—showed favorable efficacy in individuals with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to the first set of clinical data reported from the phase 1a/b EMBER study.
Key eligibility criteria for phase 1b enrollment included prior sensitivity to endocrine therapy, ≤2 prior therapies, and a PIK3CA mutation (alpelisib arm only). Prior therapies included endocrine therapy (100%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (100%), hormonal therapy with fulvestrant (35%), and chemotherapy (17%). At baseline, 46% of patients had visceral disease and 46% had an ESR1 mutation. Participants received imlunestrant alone (n=114) or with the kinase inhibitors everolimus (n=42) or alpelisib (n=21). Investigators assessed each regimen’s safety profile, as well as the objective response rate and clinical benefit rate.
The safety profile of each regimen was similar to those seen with everolimus and alpelisib alone. No cardiac or ocular toxicities were observed. Regarding grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events:
The imlunestrant alone group experienced fatigue (2%) and neutropenia (2%)
The imlunestrant + everolimus group experienced hypertriglyceridemia (5%) and aspartate aminotransferase increase (5%)
The imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort experienced rash (43%) and hyperglycemia (10%).
In the imlunestrant alone group, 2% of individuals had their doses reduced due to adverse events; none discontinued treatment
In the imlunestrant + everolimus cohort, 12% of patients experienced dose reduction due to everolimus and 2% due to both medications; 2% discontinued treatment due to everolimus
In the imlunestrant + alpelisib cohort, 24% of patients experienced dose reduction due to alpelisib and 14% due to both medications; 29% discontinued treatment due to alpelisib
Regarding efficacy:
The objective response rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 9%, 21%, and 50%, respectively
The clinical benefit rates in the imlunestrant alone, imlunestrant + everolimus, and imlunestrant + alpelisib groups were 42%, 62%, and 62%, respectively
Investigators concluded that imlunestrant used alone or in combination with 1 of the 2 kinase inhibitors demonstrated robust efficacy in individuals with pretreated, ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.
OPERA: OP-1250 Paired With a CDK4/6 Inhibitor: Anti-Tumor Activity With No Dose-Limiting Toxicities
Study synopsis
OP-1250, a CERAN and SERD, continues to show promising results when paired with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The combination of OP-1250 and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib appears to be well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to each drug when used alone, according to a phase I/II study involving 20 individuals with pretreated ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Participants had advanced or metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer that progressed on ≤1 lines of endocrine therapy. Fourteen participants had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, including 11 who were previously treated with palbociclib. Patients received escalating doses of OP-1250 with 125 mg of palbociclib orally daily for 21 of 28 days. OP-1250 doses were 30 mg (n=3), 60 mg (n=3), 90 mg (n=3), and 120 mg (n=11). Investigators assessed pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, safety, and efficacy. Among the results observed to date:
Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 55% of participants
There were no grade 4 treatment-related adverse events and no dose-limiting toxicities
OP-1250 exposure yielded similar results to what was seen in the previous monotherapy study
Palbociclib exposure was comparable to published monotherapy data when combined with OP-1250 for all dosages
Investigators observed antitumor activity, including partial responses
Researchers concluded that OP-1250 does not affect the pharmacokinetics of palbociclib, and there do not appear to be drug-drug interactions. Tumor response to this combination was encouraging and requires continued investigation.
Conclusions
These 3 studies presented at ESMO 2023 highlight exciting novel therapies for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-low, and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The EMBER and OPERA updates provide support for the safety and efficacy of these novel endocrine agents in combination with kinase inhibitors and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively, in patients with endocrine-sensitive disease, while the TROPION-01 study demonstrates the encouraging efficacy and safety of a second TROP-2-directed ADC in a more heavily pretreated population.
Dato-DXd trumps chemo in advanced HR+/HER2– breast cancer
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023
Remote symptom monitoring in advanced cancer improves quality of life
During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.
said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.
Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”
Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.
In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.
Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.
For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.
Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).
Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).
At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).
Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.
Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.
However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.
He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.
It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.
Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.
These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.
“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.
ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”
The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”
Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.
Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.
Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.
Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.
said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.
Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”
Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.
In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.
Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.
For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.
Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).
Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).
At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).
Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.
Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.
However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.
He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.
It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.
Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.
These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.
“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.
ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”
The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”
Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.
Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.
Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.
Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.
said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.
Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”
Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.
In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.
Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.
For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.
Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).
Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).
At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).
Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.
Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.
However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.
He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.
It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.
Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.
These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.
“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.
ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”
The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”
Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.
Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.
Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.
Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023
Does surgery improve survival in metastatic breast cancer?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
- To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
- The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
- Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
- The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
- Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life.
IN PRACTICE:
“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”
SOURCE:
The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
- To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
- The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
- Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
- The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
- Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life.
IN PRACTICE:
“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”
SOURCE:
The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
- To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
- The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
- Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
- The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
- Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life.
IN PRACTICE:
“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”
SOURCE:
The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.
LIMITATIONS:
The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PET-CT scans move more women with LABC up to stage IV
In women who have locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), staging defines the extent of the disease and guides therapy.
Researchers have found in the first large, randomized, controlled study on the subject that 18 F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) finds more distant metastases and allows more accurate staging than usual staging, which is determined by a bone scan and computed tomography (CT) of the thorax/abdomen and pelvis.
Findings of the study, led by Ian S. Dayes, MD, MSc, with the department of oncology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Scans indicate less aggressive treatment strategy
The authors of the new study wrote that women with LABC, who are at high risk of metastatic disease, have large tumors that “can involve the chest wall or skin, clinically fixed axillary lymph nodes, or infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymphadenopathy.”
If staging does not detect metastases, treatment is centered on combined modality therapy with curative intent (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery, followed by regional radiation). If metastases are found, the treatment goal changes to controlling the disease.
In this study, twice as many women saw their stage increase from stage IIB or III to stage IV when PET-CT was used instead of conventional staging, guiding their treatment toward less aggressive care to control, rather than attempt to cure, the disease.
The women included in this study had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1).
Methods and results
Between December 2016 and April 2022, consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging.
Overall, the authors wrote, 43 (23%) of PET-CT patients “were upstaged” to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) of the conventionally staged patients (relative risk, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.2, P = .002).
There were 33 patients in a subset with inflammatory breast cancer and, among them, 4 of 16 (25%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 4 of 17 (24%) conventionally staged patients.
In the patients who did not have inflammatory breast cancer, 39 of 168 (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged compared with 17 (10%) of 168 in the conventionally staged group.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Senior Deputy Editor Kathy D. Miller, MD, said that, “PET/CT staging identifies distant disease in more patients and changes goals of therapy. Further research is needed to determine the impact on patient outcome.”
Findings have already changed practice
Senior author, Mark Levine, MD, MSc, also with McMaster, said in an interview that the results of this study have already changed practice in Canada, and he expects the United States to follow suit.
Dr. Levine said the study is important “in terms of helping plan therapy and being very open and honest with patients as to their prognosis.”
The findings constitute level 1 evidence in favor of PET-CT. Already, in Canada, “because of the results of the study, people with stage III breast cancer can get a PET scan,” he said.
Dr. Levine said he expects this evidence also to clarify “wishy-washy” National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on using PET scans for LABC in the United States when the guidelines are next updated.
“That will make it easier for payers in the United States,” he added.
Cost effectiveness, Dr. Levine said, is complicated, because on one hand PET scans are quite costly. But its use would lead to more women getting less aggressive and expensive therapy and surgery.
Dr. Levine noted that his team will be analyzing cost-effectiveness over the next year.
New questions with more in stage IV
In an editorial, Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, scientific codirector of the breast center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., noted that, “all good studies raise new questions” and this one is no exception.
He pointed out that the number of women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been increasing over the past 2 decades because of more sensitive staging methods. At the same time the number of women with recurrent metastatic disease is decreasing, because adjuvant therapies have improved.
Findings highlight need for stage IV treatment studies
Dr. Pusztai noted that the patients who have de novo oligometastatic stage IV disease “are a unique subset among patients with MBC,” and the best treatment [for them] has not been established in randomized, controlled trials.
“Almost all randomized trials that targeted oligometastatic patients accrued mostly recurrent metastatic cancers; many included various cancer types, and none have tested the value of systemic multidrug regimens administered with curative intent,” he wrote.
If the health care systems adopt PET-CT for routine staging of locally advanced breast cancer, that will increase the diagnosis of de novo oligometastatic stage IV breast cancer, Dr. Pusztai said. That “underlines the importance of conducting studies for this unique subset of patients to establish level 1 evidence-based treatment strategies.”
Dr. Dayes has received honoraria from Verity Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor is employed by Point Biopharma. Other coauthors reported ties with AbbVie, Agendia, Genomic Health, InMode and Lutronic. Dr. Pusztai’s institution has received research funding from Merck, Genentech, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. He has received honoraria and travel expenses and has served in a consulting role for several pharmaceutical companies. Full disclosures are available on Open Payments.
In women who have locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), staging defines the extent of the disease and guides therapy.
Researchers have found in the first large, randomized, controlled study on the subject that 18 F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) finds more distant metastases and allows more accurate staging than usual staging, which is determined by a bone scan and computed tomography (CT) of the thorax/abdomen and pelvis.
Findings of the study, led by Ian S. Dayes, MD, MSc, with the department of oncology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Scans indicate less aggressive treatment strategy
The authors of the new study wrote that women with LABC, who are at high risk of metastatic disease, have large tumors that “can involve the chest wall or skin, clinically fixed axillary lymph nodes, or infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymphadenopathy.”
If staging does not detect metastases, treatment is centered on combined modality therapy with curative intent (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery, followed by regional radiation). If metastases are found, the treatment goal changes to controlling the disease.
In this study, twice as many women saw their stage increase from stage IIB or III to stage IV when PET-CT was used instead of conventional staging, guiding their treatment toward less aggressive care to control, rather than attempt to cure, the disease.
The women included in this study had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1).
Methods and results
Between December 2016 and April 2022, consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging.
Overall, the authors wrote, 43 (23%) of PET-CT patients “were upstaged” to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) of the conventionally staged patients (relative risk, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.2, P = .002).
There were 33 patients in a subset with inflammatory breast cancer and, among them, 4 of 16 (25%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 4 of 17 (24%) conventionally staged patients.
In the patients who did not have inflammatory breast cancer, 39 of 168 (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged compared with 17 (10%) of 168 in the conventionally staged group.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Senior Deputy Editor Kathy D. Miller, MD, said that, “PET/CT staging identifies distant disease in more patients and changes goals of therapy. Further research is needed to determine the impact on patient outcome.”
Findings have already changed practice
Senior author, Mark Levine, MD, MSc, also with McMaster, said in an interview that the results of this study have already changed practice in Canada, and he expects the United States to follow suit.
Dr. Levine said the study is important “in terms of helping plan therapy and being very open and honest with patients as to their prognosis.”
The findings constitute level 1 evidence in favor of PET-CT. Already, in Canada, “because of the results of the study, people with stage III breast cancer can get a PET scan,” he said.
Dr. Levine said he expects this evidence also to clarify “wishy-washy” National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on using PET scans for LABC in the United States when the guidelines are next updated.
“That will make it easier for payers in the United States,” he added.
Cost effectiveness, Dr. Levine said, is complicated, because on one hand PET scans are quite costly. But its use would lead to more women getting less aggressive and expensive therapy and surgery.
Dr. Levine noted that his team will be analyzing cost-effectiveness over the next year.
New questions with more in stage IV
In an editorial, Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, scientific codirector of the breast center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., noted that, “all good studies raise new questions” and this one is no exception.
He pointed out that the number of women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been increasing over the past 2 decades because of more sensitive staging methods. At the same time the number of women with recurrent metastatic disease is decreasing, because adjuvant therapies have improved.
Findings highlight need for stage IV treatment studies
Dr. Pusztai noted that the patients who have de novo oligometastatic stage IV disease “are a unique subset among patients with MBC,” and the best treatment [for them] has not been established in randomized, controlled trials.
“Almost all randomized trials that targeted oligometastatic patients accrued mostly recurrent metastatic cancers; many included various cancer types, and none have tested the value of systemic multidrug regimens administered with curative intent,” he wrote.
If the health care systems adopt PET-CT for routine staging of locally advanced breast cancer, that will increase the diagnosis of de novo oligometastatic stage IV breast cancer, Dr. Pusztai said. That “underlines the importance of conducting studies for this unique subset of patients to establish level 1 evidence-based treatment strategies.”
Dr. Dayes has received honoraria from Verity Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor is employed by Point Biopharma. Other coauthors reported ties with AbbVie, Agendia, Genomic Health, InMode and Lutronic. Dr. Pusztai’s institution has received research funding from Merck, Genentech, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. He has received honoraria and travel expenses and has served in a consulting role for several pharmaceutical companies. Full disclosures are available on Open Payments.
In women who have locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), staging defines the extent of the disease and guides therapy.
Researchers have found in the first large, randomized, controlled study on the subject that 18 F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) finds more distant metastases and allows more accurate staging than usual staging, which is determined by a bone scan and computed tomography (CT) of the thorax/abdomen and pelvis.
Findings of the study, led by Ian S. Dayes, MD, MSc, with the department of oncology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Scans indicate less aggressive treatment strategy
The authors of the new study wrote that women with LABC, who are at high risk of metastatic disease, have large tumors that “can involve the chest wall or skin, clinically fixed axillary lymph nodes, or infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymphadenopathy.”
If staging does not detect metastases, treatment is centered on combined modality therapy with curative intent (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery, followed by regional radiation). If metastases are found, the treatment goal changes to controlling the disease.
In this study, twice as many women saw their stage increase from stage IIB or III to stage IV when PET-CT was used instead of conventional staging, guiding their treatment toward less aggressive care to control, rather than attempt to cure, the disease.
The women included in this study had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1).
Methods and results
Between December 2016 and April 2022, consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging.
Overall, the authors wrote, 43 (23%) of PET-CT patients “were upstaged” to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) of the conventionally staged patients (relative risk, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.2, P = .002).
There were 33 patients in a subset with inflammatory breast cancer and, among them, 4 of 16 (25%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 4 of 17 (24%) conventionally staged patients.
In the patients who did not have inflammatory breast cancer, 39 of 168 (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged compared with 17 (10%) of 168 in the conventionally staged group.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Senior Deputy Editor Kathy D. Miller, MD, said that, “PET/CT staging identifies distant disease in more patients and changes goals of therapy. Further research is needed to determine the impact on patient outcome.”
Findings have already changed practice
Senior author, Mark Levine, MD, MSc, also with McMaster, said in an interview that the results of this study have already changed practice in Canada, and he expects the United States to follow suit.
Dr. Levine said the study is important “in terms of helping plan therapy and being very open and honest with patients as to their prognosis.”
The findings constitute level 1 evidence in favor of PET-CT. Already, in Canada, “because of the results of the study, people with stage III breast cancer can get a PET scan,” he said.
Dr. Levine said he expects this evidence also to clarify “wishy-washy” National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on using PET scans for LABC in the United States when the guidelines are next updated.
“That will make it easier for payers in the United States,” he added.
Cost effectiveness, Dr. Levine said, is complicated, because on one hand PET scans are quite costly. But its use would lead to more women getting less aggressive and expensive therapy and surgery.
Dr. Levine noted that his team will be analyzing cost-effectiveness over the next year.
New questions with more in stage IV
In an editorial, Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, scientific codirector of the breast center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., noted that, “all good studies raise new questions” and this one is no exception.
He pointed out that the number of women with stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been increasing over the past 2 decades because of more sensitive staging methods. At the same time the number of women with recurrent metastatic disease is decreasing, because adjuvant therapies have improved.
Findings highlight need for stage IV treatment studies
Dr. Pusztai noted that the patients who have de novo oligometastatic stage IV disease “are a unique subset among patients with MBC,” and the best treatment [for them] has not been established in randomized, controlled trials.
“Almost all randomized trials that targeted oligometastatic patients accrued mostly recurrent metastatic cancers; many included various cancer types, and none have tested the value of systemic multidrug regimens administered with curative intent,” he wrote.
If the health care systems adopt PET-CT for routine staging of locally advanced breast cancer, that will increase the diagnosis of de novo oligometastatic stage IV breast cancer, Dr. Pusztai said. That “underlines the importance of conducting studies for this unique subset of patients to establish level 1 evidence-based treatment strategies.”
Dr. Dayes has received honoraria from Verity Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor is employed by Point Biopharma. Other coauthors reported ties with AbbVie, Agendia, Genomic Health, InMode and Lutronic. Dr. Pusztai’s institution has received research funding from Merck, Genentech, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. He has received honoraria and travel expenses and has served in a consulting role for several pharmaceutical companies. Full disclosures are available on Open Payments.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Multiprong strategy makes clinical trials less White
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.
For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.
When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.
There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.
Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.
During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.
Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.
“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.
The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual
The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.
“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
What works?
The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”
“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.
“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.
She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.
Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:
- Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
- Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
- Translation of informational materials for patients.
- Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
- Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
- Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
- Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023