Multiple Myeloma

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

Click to view the Digital Edition.

In this issue: 

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Special care for veterans, changes in staging, and biomarkers for early diagnosis

Lung Cancer
Guideline updates and racial disparities in veterans

Multiple Myeloma
Improving survival in the VA

Colorectal Cancer
Barriers to follow-up colonoscopies after FIT testing 

B-Cell Lymphomas
Findings from the VA's National TeleOncology Program and recent therapy updates

Breast Cancer
A look at the VA's Risk Assessment Pipeline and incidence among veterans vs the general population

Genitourinary Cancers
Molecular testing in prostate cancer, improving survival for metastatic RCC, and links between bladder cancer and Agent Orange exposure

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

While the increased risk of cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome is well established by research, the authors of a new study delve deeper by examining metabolic syndrome trajectories.

The new research finds that adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer.

The conditions that make up metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

However, a single assessment of metabolic syndrome at one point in time is inadequate to show an association with cancer risk over time, they said. In the current study, the researchers used models to examine the association between trajectory patterns of metabolic syndrome over time and the risk of overall and specific cancer types. They also examined the impact of chronic inflammation concurrent with metabolic syndrome.
 

What We Know About Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2020 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

In addition, a 2022 study by some of the current study researchers of the same Chinese cohort focused on the role of inflammation in combination with metabolic syndrome on colorectal cancer specifically, and found an increased risk for cancer when both metabolic syndrome and inflammation were present.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.

“There is emerging evidence that even normal weight individuals who are metabolically unhealthy may be at an elevated cancer risk, and we need better metrics to define the underlying metabolic dysfunction in obesity,” Sheetal Hardikar, MBBS, PhD, MPH, an investigator at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, said in an interview.

Dr. Hardikar, who serves as assistant professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah, was not involved in the current study. She and her colleagues published a research paper on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2023 that showed an increased risk of obesity-related cancer.
 

What New Study Adds to Related Research

Previous studies have consistently reported an approximately 30% increased risk of cancer with metabolic syndrome, Dr. Hardikar said. “What is unique about this study is the examination of metabolic syndrome trajectories over four years, and not just the presence of metabolic syndrome at one point in time,” she said.

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years; the mean body mass index ranged from approximately 22 kg/m² in the low-stable group to approximately 28 kg/m² in the elevated-increasing group.

The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.

Using the International Diabetes Federation criteria was another limitation, because it prevented the assessment of cancer risk in normal weight individuals with metabolic dysfunction, Dr. Hardikar noted.
 

Does Metabolic Syndrome Cause Cancer?

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, noted in a statement on the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he continued.

“Current evidence based on this study and many other reports strongly suggests an increased risk for cancer associated with metabolic syndrome,” Dr. Hardikar said in an interview. The data serve as a reminder to clinicians to look beyond BMI as the only measure of obesity, and to consider metabolic factors together to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer, she said.

“We must continue to educate patients about obesity and all the chronic conditions it may lead to, but we cannot ignore this emerging phenotype of being of normal weight but metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Hardikar emphasized.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

Looking ahead, “we need well-designed interventions to test causality for metabolic syndrome and cancer risk, though the evidence from the observational studies is very strong,” Dr. Hardikar said.

In addition, a consensus is needed to better define metabolic dysfunction,and to explore cancer risk in normal weight but metabolically unhealthy individuals, she said.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers and Dr. Hardikar had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.