User login
The Long, Controversial Search for a ‘Cancer Microbiome’
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Few Cancer Survivors Meet ACS Nutrition, Exercise Guidelines
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
- Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
- The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
- Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.
TAKEAWAY:
Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.
When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.
Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.
The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).
IN PRACTICE:
This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”
SOURCE:
This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
- Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
- The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
- Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.
TAKEAWAY:
Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.
When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.
Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.
The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).
IN PRACTICE:
This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”
SOURCE:
This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
- Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
- The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
- Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.
TAKEAWAY:
Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.
When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.
Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.
The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).
IN PRACTICE:
This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”
SOURCE:
This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tiny Doses of Metabolically Armed CAR T Show Benefits
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
FROM AACR 2024
Adding ACEI to Chemotherapy Does Not Prevent Cardiotoxicity
a new randomized trial showed.
The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.
But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”
The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.
While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.
The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.
Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.
The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.
During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
Myocardial Injury Outcome
The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.
cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.
Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.
A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).
There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
Large Discrepancy
The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.
The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”
Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.
There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).
Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”
Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.
“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”
He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”
He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
Tough Population
Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.
“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”
Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”
And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”
The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.
“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”
Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
a new randomized trial showed.
The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.
But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”
The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.
While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.
The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.
Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.
The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.
During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
Myocardial Injury Outcome
The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.
cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.
Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.
A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).
There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
Large Discrepancy
The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.
The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”
Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.
There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).
Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”
Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.
“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”
He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”
He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
Tough Population
Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.
“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”
Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”
And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”
The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.
“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”
Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
a new randomized trial showed.
The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.
But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”
The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.
While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.
The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.
Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.
The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.
During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
Myocardial Injury Outcome
The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.
cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.
Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.
A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).
There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
Large Discrepancy
The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.
The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”
Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.
There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).
Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”
Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.
“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”
He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”
He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
Tough Population
Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.
“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”
Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”
And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”
The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.
“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”
Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ACC 2024
Timing Is Everything: CAR T for Follicular Lymphoma
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.
Most Targeted Cancer Drugs Lack Substantial Clinical Benefit
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
No Routine Cancer Screening Option? New MCED Tests May Help
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER