User login
The ASCO Annual Meeting Starts This Week
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
ASTRO Releases New EBRT Guideline for Symptomatic Bone Mets
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
FROM PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
ASCO Provides Guidance on CDK4/6 Inhibitors for Early Breast Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
- The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).
TAKEAWAY:
- Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
- Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
- For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
- Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
- Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
IN PRACTICE:
This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.
SOURCE:
The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
DISCLOSURES:
Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
- The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).
TAKEAWAY:
- Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
- Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
- For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
- Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
- Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
IN PRACTICE:
This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.
SOURCE:
The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
DISCLOSURES:
Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The guideline update was needed to incorporate new high-quality evidence for the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer.
- The ASCO guideline expert panel reviewed evidence from phase 3 trials, including the monarchE and NATALEE studies, focusing on the efficacy of abemaciclib and ribociclib in improving invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).
TAKEAWAY:
- Abemaciclib for 2 years plus endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years is recommended for patients with resected, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, including those with at least four positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) or one to three positive ALNs plus additional high-risk features.
- Ribociclib (400 mg once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) for 3 years plus ET is recommended for patients with stage II or III breast cancer who have a high risk of recurrence, based on the NATALEE trial.
- For patients meeting both monarchE and NATALEE criteria, abemaciclib is preferred due to longer follow-up, a deepening benefit over time, and FDA approval in the adjuvant setting.
- Ribociclib is recommended for patients who cannot tolerate abemaciclib due to contraindications such as high-grade diarrhea.
- Benefits, risks, costs, and individual patient preferences should be considered when deciding on adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
IN PRACTICE:
This rapid recommendation update addresses the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.
SOURCE:
The clinical practice guideline update, led by Rachel A. Freedman, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The guideline panelists noted that the clinical benefits of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy may not extend to all patients eligible for the trials, particularly those at lower risk. There are insufficient data to specify which subgroups of patients may not warrant therapy, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. More data are needed to provide long-term efficacy data and more detailed guidance on which specific patient populations will benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.
DISCLOSURES:
Guideline development was funded by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The panelists disclosed relationships with Firefly Health, Eisai, Novartis, and others.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Obesity and Cancer: Untangling a Complex Web
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Urine Test Could Prevent Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies
To date, men undergoing screening through the measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels have had a significant reduction in neoplastic mortality. Because of its low specificity, however, this practice often leads to frequent, unnecessary, invasive biopsies and the diagnosis of low-grade, indolent cancer.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network proposes a test consisting of six blood and urine biomarkers for all grades of prostate cancer, and it outperforms PSA testing. However, current practice focuses on detecting high-grade cancers. It has been hypothesized that increasing the number of biomarkers by including molecules specifically expressed in aggressive high-grade prostate cancers could improve test accuracy. Based on the identification of new genes that are overexpressed in high-grade cancers, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique targeting 54 candidate markers was used to develop an optimal 18-gene test that could be used before imaging (with MRI) and biopsy and to assess whether the latter procedures are warranted.
Development Cohort
In the development cohort (n = 815; median age, 63 years), quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of the 54 candidate genes was performed on urine samples that had been prospectively collected before biopsy following a digital rectal examination. Patients with previously diagnosed prostate cancer, abnormal MRI results, and those who had already undergone a prostate biopsy were excluded. Participants’ PSA levels ranged from 3 to 10 ng/mL (median interquartile range [IQR], 5.6 [4.6-7.2] ng/mL). Valid qPCR results were obtained from 761 participants (93.4%). Subsequently, prostate biopsy revealed grade 2 or higher cancer in 293 participants (38.5%).
Thus, a urine test called MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPSA) was developed, with two formulations: MPSA2 and MPSA2+, depending on whether a prostate volume was considered. The final MPSA2 development model included clinical data and 17 of the most informative markers, including nine specific to cancer, which were associated with the KLK3 reference gene.
Validation and Analyses
The external validation cohort (n = 813) consisted of participants in the NCI EDRN PCA3 Evaluation trial. Valid qPCR results were obtained from 743 participants, of whom 151 (20.3%) were found to have high-grade prostate cancer.
The median MPS2 score was higher in patients with grade 2 or higher prostate cancer (0.44; IQR, 0.23-0.69) than in those with noncontributory biopsies (0.08; IQR, 0.03-0.19; P < .001) or grade 1 cancer (0.25; IQR, 0.09-0.48; P < .01).
Comparative analyses included PSA, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and various previous genetic models. Decision curve analyses quantified the benefit of each biomarker studied. The 151 participants with high-grade prostate cancer had operating curve values ranging from 0.60 for PSA alone to 0.77 for PHI and 0.76 for a two-gene multiplex model. The MPSA model had values of 0.81 and 0.82 for MPSA2+. For a required sensitivity of 95%, the MPS2 model could reduce the rate of unnecessary initial biopsies in the population by 35%-42%, with an impact of 15%-30% for other tests. Among the subgroups analyzed, MPS2 models showed negative predictive values of 95%-99% for grade 2 or higher prostate cancers and 99% for grade 3 or higher tumors.
MPS2 and Competitors
Existing biomarkers have reduced selectivity in detecting high-grade prostate tumors. This lower performance has led to the development of a new urine test including, for the first time, markers specifically overexpressed in high-grade prostate cancer. This new MPS2 test has a sensitivity of 95% for high-grade prostate cancer and a specificity ranging from 35% to 51%, depending on the subgroups. For clinicians, widespread use of MPS2 could greatly reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high detection rate of grade 2 or higher prostate cancer.
Among patients who have had a negative first biopsy, MPS2 would have a sensitivity of 94.4% and a specificity of 51%, which is much higher than other tests like prostate cancer antigen 3 gene, three-gene model, and MPS. In addition, in patients with grade 1 prostate cancer, urinary markers for high-grade cancer could indicate the existence of a more aggressive tumor requiring increased monitoring.
This study has limitations, however. The ethnic diversity of its population was limited. A few Black men were included, for example. Second, a systematic biopsy was used as the reference, which can increase negative predictive value and decrease positive predictive value. Classification errors may have occurred. Therefore, further studies are needed to confirm these initial results and the long-term positive impact of using MPS2.
In conclusion, an 18-gene urine test seems to be more relevant for diagnosing high-grade prostate cancer than existing tests. It could prevent additional imaging or biopsy examinations in 35%-41% of patients. Therefore, the use of such tests in patients with high PSA levels could reduce the potential risks associated with prostate cancer screening while preserving its long-term benefits.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To date, men undergoing screening through the measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels have had a significant reduction in neoplastic mortality. Because of its low specificity, however, this practice often leads to frequent, unnecessary, invasive biopsies and the diagnosis of low-grade, indolent cancer.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network proposes a test consisting of six blood and urine biomarkers for all grades of prostate cancer, and it outperforms PSA testing. However, current practice focuses on detecting high-grade cancers. It has been hypothesized that increasing the number of biomarkers by including molecules specifically expressed in aggressive high-grade prostate cancers could improve test accuracy. Based on the identification of new genes that are overexpressed in high-grade cancers, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique targeting 54 candidate markers was used to develop an optimal 18-gene test that could be used before imaging (with MRI) and biopsy and to assess whether the latter procedures are warranted.
Development Cohort
In the development cohort (n = 815; median age, 63 years), quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of the 54 candidate genes was performed on urine samples that had been prospectively collected before biopsy following a digital rectal examination. Patients with previously diagnosed prostate cancer, abnormal MRI results, and those who had already undergone a prostate biopsy were excluded. Participants’ PSA levels ranged from 3 to 10 ng/mL (median interquartile range [IQR], 5.6 [4.6-7.2] ng/mL). Valid qPCR results were obtained from 761 participants (93.4%). Subsequently, prostate biopsy revealed grade 2 or higher cancer in 293 participants (38.5%).
Thus, a urine test called MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPSA) was developed, with two formulations: MPSA2 and MPSA2+, depending on whether a prostate volume was considered. The final MPSA2 development model included clinical data and 17 of the most informative markers, including nine specific to cancer, which were associated with the KLK3 reference gene.
Validation and Analyses
The external validation cohort (n = 813) consisted of participants in the NCI EDRN PCA3 Evaluation trial. Valid qPCR results were obtained from 743 participants, of whom 151 (20.3%) were found to have high-grade prostate cancer.
The median MPS2 score was higher in patients with grade 2 or higher prostate cancer (0.44; IQR, 0.23-0.69) than in those with noncontributory biopsies (0.08; IQR, 0.03-0.19; P < .001) or grade 1 cancer (0.25; IQR, 0.09-0.48; P < .01).
Comparative analyses included PSA, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and various previous genetic models. Decision curve analyses quantified the benefit of each biomarker studied. The 151 participants with high-grade prostate cancer had operating curve values ranging from 0.60 for PSA alone to 0.77 for PHI and 0.76 for a two-gene multiplex model. The MPSA model had values of 0.81 and 0.82 for MPSA2+. For a required sensitivity of 95%, the MPS2 model could reduce the rate of unnecessary initial biopsies in the population by 35%-42%, with an impact of 15%-30% for other tests. Among the subgroups analyzed, MPS2 models showed negative predictive values of 95%-99% for grade 2 or higher prostate cancers and 99% for grade 3 or higher tumors.
MPS2 and Competitors
Existing biomarkers have reduced selectivity in detecting high-grade prostate tumors. This lower performance has led to the development of a new urine test including, for the first time, markers specifically overexpressed in high-grade prostate cancer. This new MPS2 test has a sensitivity of 95% for high-grade prostate cancer and a specificity ranging from 35% to 51%, depending on the subgroups. For clinicians, widespread use of MPS2 could greatly reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high detection rate of grade 2 or higher prostate cancer.
Among patients who have had a negative first biopsy, MPS2 would have a sensitivity of 94.4% and a specificity of 51%, which is much higher than other tests like prostate cancer antigen 3 gene, three-gene model, and MPS. In addition, in patients with grade 1 prostate cancer, urinary markers for high-grade cancer could indicate the existence of a more aggressive tumor requiring increased monitoring.
This study has limitations, however. The ethnic diversity of its population was limited. A few Black men were included, for example. Second, a systematic biopsy was used as the reference, which can increase negative predictive value and decrease positive predictive value. Classification errors may have occurred. Therefore, further studies are needed to confirm these initial results and the long-term positive impact of using MPS2.
In conclusion, an 18-gene urine test seems to be more relevant for diagnosing high-grade prostate cancer than existing tests. It could prevent additional imaging or biopsy examinations in 35%-41% of patients. Therefore, the use of such tests in patients with high PSA levels could reduce the potential risks associated with prostate cancer screening while preserving its long-term benefits.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To date, men undergoing screening through the measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels have had a significant reduction in neoplastic mortality. Because of its low specificity, however, this practice often leads to frequent, unnecessary, invasive biopsies and the diagnosis of low-grade, indolent cancer.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network proposes a test consisting of six blood and urine biomarkers for all grades of prostate cancer, and it outperforms PSA testing. However, current practice focuses on detecting high-grade cancers. It has been hypothesized that increasing the number of biomarkers by including molecules specifically expressed in aggressive high-grade prostate cancers could improve test accuracy. Based on the identification of new genes that are overexpressed in high-grade cancers, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique targeting 54 candidate markers was used to develop an optimal 18-gene test that could be used before imaging (with MRI) and biopsy and to assess whether the latter procedures are warranted.
Development Cohort
In the development cohort (n = 815; median age, 63 years), quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of the 54 candidate genes was performed on urine samples that had been prospectively collected before biopsy following a digital rectal examination. Patients with previously diagnosed prostate cancer, abnormal MRI results, and those who had already undergone a prostate biopsy were excluded. Participants’ PSA levels ranged from 3 to 10 ng/mL (median interquartile range [IQR], 5.6 [4.6-7.2] ng/mL). Valid qPCR results were obtained from 761 participants (93.4%). Subsequently, prostate biopsy revealed grade 2 or higher cancer in 293 participants (38.5%).
Thus, a urine test called MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPSA) was developed, with two formulations: MPSA2 and MPSA2+, depending on whether a prostate volume was considered. The final MPSA2 development model included clinical data and 17 of the most informative markers, including nine specific to cancer, which were associated with the KLK3 reference gene.
Validation and Analyses
The external validation cohort (n = 813) consisted of participants in the NCI EDRN PCA3 Evaluation trial. Valid qPCR results were obtained from 743 participants, of whom 151 (20.3%) were found to have high-grade prostate cancer.
The median MPS2 score was higher in patients with grade 2 or higher prostate cancer (0.44; IQR, 0.23-0.69) than in those with noncontributory biopsies (0.08; IQR, 0.03-0.19; P < .001) or grade 1 cancer (0.25; IQR, 0.09-0.48; P < .01).
Comparative analyses included PSA, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and various previous genetic models. Decision curve analyses quantified the benefit of each biomarker studied. The 151 participants with high-grade prostate cancer had operating curve values ranging from 0.60 for PSA alone to 0.77 for PHI and 0.76 for a two-gene multiplex model. The MPSA model had values of 0.81 and 0.82 for MPSA2+. For a required sensitivity of 95%, the MPS2 model could reduce the rate of unnecessary initial biopsies in the population by 35%-42%, with an impact of 15%-30% for other tests. Among the subgroups analyzed, MPS2 models showed negative predictive values of 95%-99% for grade 2 or higher prostate cancers and 99% for grade 3 or higher tumors.
MPS2 and Competitors
Existing biomarkers have reduced selectivity in detecting high-grade prostate tumors. This lower performance has led to the development of a new urine test including, for the first time, markers specifically overexpressed in high-grade prostate cancer. This new MPS2 test has a sensitivity of 95% for high-grade prostate cancer and a specificity ranging from 35% to 51%, depending on the subgroups. For clinicians, widespread use of MPS2 could greatly reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high detection rate of grade 2 or higher prostate cancer.
Among patients who have had a negative first biopsy, MPS2 would have a sensitivity of 94.4% and a specificity of 51%, which is much higher than other tests like prostate cancer antigen 3 gene, three-gene model, and MPS. In addition, in patients with grade 1 prostate cancer, urinary markers for high-grade cancer could indicate the existence of a more aggressive tumor requiring increased monitoring.
This study has limitations, however. The ethnic diversity of its population was limited. A few Black men were included, for example. Second, a systematic biopsy was used as the reference, which can increase negative predictive value and decrease positive predictive value. Classification errors may have occurred. Therefore, further studies are needed to confirm these initial results and the long-term positive impact of using MPS2.
In conclusion, an 18-gene urine test seems to be more relevant for diagnosing high-grade prostate cancer than existing tests. It could prevent additional imaging or biopsy examinations in 35%-41% of patients. Therefore, the use of such tests in patients with high PSA levels could reduce the potential risks associated with prostate cancer screening while preserving its long-term benefits.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most women can conceive after breast cancer treatment
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
FROM ASCO 2024
Is Vaginal Estrogen Safe in Breast Cancer Survivors?
TOPLINE:
Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
- Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
- Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both.
- Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
- No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
- In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).
IN PRACTICE:
“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.
SOURCE:
The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.
LIMITATIONS:
No limitations were discussed in the presentation.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
- Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
- Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both.
- Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
- No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
- In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).
IN PRACTICE:
“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.
SOURCE:
The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.
LIMITATIONS:
No limitations were discussed in the presentation.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
- Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
- Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both.
- Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
- No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
- In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).
IN PRACTICE:
“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.
SOURCE:
The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.
LIMITATIONS:
No limitations were discussed in the presentation.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Research Highlights From ESMO Breast Cancer
Among the topics the speakers addressed were breast cancer prevention, early breast cancer, advanced breast cancer, and supportive care.
In recent years, the way clinicians look at carcinogenesis in breast cancer has changed, and many new targets for potential early detection and prevention have emerged, said Suzette Delaloge, MD, of Gustave Roussy, Paris, France, in her presentation at the meeting.
Instant risk assessment at different time points could potentially intercept cancer among high-risk individuals, she said.
A study by Mikael Eriksson, PhD, and colleagues focused on external validation of the Profound AI tool to identify breast cancer risk in the general population. The researchers showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in their AI risk model, which has the potential to be clinically meaningful, although it must be prospectively validated, Dr. Delaloge said in her presentation.
She also reviewed two studies on the use of genes to further refine breast cancer risk among carriers. One of these, a prospective study presented in a session by Kelly-Anne Phillips, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia, used the CANRISK online risk assessment tool and validated increased breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The other study, which was by Maria Rezqallah Aron, MD, and colleagues examined polygenic scores as a way to refine breast cancer risk stratification among carriers of the ALM and PALB2 genes as well. These genes might be useful in identifying individuals who could benefit from early intervention, including surgery, Dr. Delaloge said.
Translational Research
“Preparing my talk, I felt like a kid in a candy store,” because of the amount of new translational research presented, including several studies of endocrine treatment–based approaches to therapy, said Marleen Kok, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
In her presentation, Dr. Kok highlighted findings from an analysis of patients in the monarchE study (a trial of high-risk patients) showing a consistent improvement in invasive disease-free survival for the subset of patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy.
The value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on patients who are not receiving chemotherapy is important because of the focus on prognosis, and prospective trials are underway, she said.
A poster on the impact of chemotherapy and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in stage I triple-negative breast cancer showed no association between chemotherapy and better outcomes regardless of sTILs in patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy, which has implications for potential treatment sparing in this population, Dr. Kok noted.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the subject of several posters at the meeting, and Dr. Kok identified a multisite European study of an automated HER2 scoring system as notable for its size and accuracy. In the study, the accuracy among pathologists was much higher with the assistance of AI, she said. Using AI for more complex analysis has shown success, she said.
Dr. Kok ended her talk with a poster that surveyed breast cancer patients about their understanding of their disease. The results showed that less than half (44%) of patients reported that their healthcare providers had given them enough information to learn about their breast cancer type, and less than one third could recall terminology about biomarkers; the study is important because it shows that clinicians need to do better in explaining these terms to patients, Dr. Kok said.
Early Breast Cancer
Right-sizing therapy, meaning identifying the right treatment for every patient, is a key element of new research in early breast cancer, said Erika Hamilton, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
She highlighted safety and treatment duration updates from the NATALEE study, which compared adjuvant ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) to NSAI alone for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. The current analysis presented at the meeting showed significant benefits with the addition of ribociclib and no evidence of new safety signals or adverse event exacerbations at 3 years, she said. Dose modifications had no significant impact on efficacy, she added.
The findings of no impact of dose reduction on efficacy in both the NATALEE and monarchE studies provide important information on whether dosage can be reduced in patients, which will increase the odds that patients will tolerate extended therapy with good outcomes and stay on their prescribed therapies, Dr. Hamilton emphasized.
The CARABELA study, a phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant letrozole plus abemaciclib vs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC), showed clinically similar response rates but did not meet its endpoint for residual cancer burden (RCB) scores. These data add to results from other studies and show that it is too soon to universally replace neoadjuvant chemotherapy as first-line treatment for highly proliferative ER+ breast cancer, Dr. Hamilton said in her presentation.
Advanced Breast Cancer
Take-home messages about advanced breast cancer include growing evidence for the potential benefits of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), said Eva Ciruelos, MD, of University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. The TROPION-BREAST01 study, a phase 3 randomized trial, showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who received datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) compared with those who received chemotherapy.
Data from an additional safety analysis were presented at the meeting; although Dato-DXd, a trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP2)–directed antibody-drug conjugate, was well-tolerated, it is important to remain aware of toxicities, notably oral mucositis, which occurred in 55.6% of the patients in the study across all grades, and ocular surface toxicity, which occurred in 40% of patients across all grades, Dr. Ciruelos emphasized.
Key research in the area of advanced triple-negative breast cancer included data from the IMPASSION 132 study. This study is “specifically centered on early relapsers,” a population often excluded from other trials, Dr. Ciruelos said. In this study, patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer were randomized to chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab, and the study showed no benefits with atezolizumab for overall survival, progression-free survival, or overall response rate, she said. “This is something to work with, because this is a very refractory population,” Dr. Ciruelos noted.
New immunotherapy combinations are needed to improve survival in advanced breast cancer patients, Dr. Ciruelos said. At the meeting, researchers presented interim data from a subset of patients in the MORPHEUS-pan breast cancer trial, a phase 1B/2 study involving multiple treatment combinations in locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.
The interim analysis included 18-week data from triple-negative breast cancer patients and compared outcomes for patients randomized to atezolizumab with or without sacituzumab govitecan (SG).
The study was small, with only 31 patients in the combination arm and 11 controls, but the results were promising, with an overall response rate of 76.7% in the combination arm vs 66.7% in the control arm, Dr. Ciruelos said.
Supportive Care
Key supportive care takeaways included data on pregnancy in young breast cancer survivors and the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in breast cancer patients with genitourinary symptoms, said Anne May, MD, of the University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
A study previously published in JAMA including nearly 5000 BRCA carriers who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger showed no association between pregnancy after breast cancer and adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, and pregnancy had no significant impact on overall survival. The authors presented new data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) based on the 543 pregnancies in the original study, at the meeting. Of these, 436 conceived naturally, and 107 used ART. After a median of 9.1 years, ART had no effect on disease-free survival compared to natural conception (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64). Based on these findings, fertility preservation should be offered to all women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis and are interested in future fertility, Dr. May said.
Conceiving after breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated for young BRCA carriers, she added.No trial data are available for the effects of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) on disease-free survival in breast cancer survivors with genitourinary symptoms caused by declining estrogen levels, Dr. May said. However, researchers in France and Switzerland conducted an emulation of a hypothetical target trial using data from the French National social security system for more than 130,000 individuals. Although VET therapy had no impact on disease-free survival in most breast cancer survivors overall, it did have a negative impact in a subset of patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors who were treated with aromatase inhibitors. The study was hypothetical, but important because the results suggest that clinicians can safely propose VTE to patients who report genitourinary symptoms after treatment for early-stage breast cancer with tamoxifen, but VTE should be avoided in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors, Dr. May said.
Dr. Delaloge disclosed research support to her institution from AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Taiho, Novartis, European Commission, INCa, Banque des Territoires, and Fondation Philanthropia. She also disclosed honoraria to her institution from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Elsan, Besins, Sanofi, Exact Sciences, and Lilly, as well as travel support from Novartis.
Dr. Kok disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi, and Roche, and advisory board membership/speaker’s fees from Alderaan Biotechnology, BIONTECH, Domain Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Daichi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Medscape, MSD, and Roche.
Dr. Hamilton disclosed a consulting advisory role (to her institution) for Accutar Biotechology, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, Entos, Forsum Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Greenwich LifeSciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Medical Pharma Services, Mersana, Novartis, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Orum Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Stemline Therapeutics, ands others. She also disclosed contracted research/grant support to her institution only from Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Accutar Biotechnology , ADC Therapeutics, AKESOBIO Australia , Amgen, Aravive, ArQule, Artios, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, BeiGene, Black Diamond and others.
Dr. Ciruelos disclosed serving as an external advisor for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly, as well as serving as a speaker for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. She also disclosed travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and research grants from Seagen and Roche.
Dr. May had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Among the topics the speakers addressed were breast cancer prevention, early breast cancer, advanced breast cancer, and supportive care.
In recent years, the way clinicians look at carcinogenesis in breast cancer has changed, and many new targets for potential early detection and prevention have emerged, said Suzette Delaloge, MD, of Gustave Roussy, Paris, France, in her presentation at the meeting.
Instant risk assessment at different time points could potentially intercept cancer among high-risk individuals, she said.
A study by Mikael Eriksson, PhD, and colleagues focused on external validation of the Profound AI tool to identify breast cancer risk in the general population. The researchers showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in their AI risk model, which has the potential to be clinically meaningful, although it must be prospectively validated, Dr. Delaloge said in her presentation.
She also reviewed two studies on the use of genes to further refine breast cancer risk among carriers. One of these, a prospective study presented in a session by Kelly-Anne Phillips, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia, used the CANRISK online risk assessment tool and validated increased breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The other study, which was by Maria Rezqallah Aron, MD, and colleagues examined polygenic scores as a way to refine breast cancer risk stratification among carriers of the ALM and PALB2 genes as well. These genes might be useful in identifying individuals who could benefit from early intervention, including surgery, Dr. Delaloge said.
Translational Research
“Preparing my talk, I felt like a kid in a candy store,” because of the amount of new translational research presented, including several studies of endocrine treatment–based approaches to therapy, said Marleen Kok, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
In her presentation, Dr. Kok highlighted findings from an analysis of patients in the monarchE study (a trial of high-risk patients) showing a consistent improvement in invasive disease-free survival for the subset of patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy.
The value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on patients who are not receiving chemotherapy is important because of the focus on prognosis, and prospective trials are underway, she said.
A poster on the impact of chemotherapy and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in stage I triple-negative breast cancer showed no association between chemotherapy and better outcomes regardless of sTILs in patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy, which has implications for potential treatment sparing in this population, Dr. Kok noted.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the subject of several posters at the meeting, and Dr. Kok identified a multisite European study of an automated HER2 scoring system as notable for its size and accuracy. In the study, the accuracy among pathologists was much higher with the assistance of AI, she said. Using AI for more complex analysis has shown success, she said.
Dr. Kok ended her talk with a poster that surveyed breast cancer patients about their understanding of their disease. The results showed that less than half (44%) of patients reported that their healthcare providers had given them enough information to learn about their breast cancer type, and less than one third could recall terminology about biomarkers; the study is important because it shows that clinicians need to do better in explaining these terms to patients, Dr. Kok said.
Early Breast Cancer
Right-sizing therapy, meaning identifying the right treatment for every patient, is a key element of new research in early breast cancer, said Erika Hamilton, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
She highlighted safety and treatment duration updates from the NATALEE study, which compared adjuvant ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) to NSAI alone for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. The current analysis presented at the meeting showed significant benefits with the addition of ribociclib and no evidence of new safety signals or adverse event exacerbations at 3 years, she said. Dose modifications had no significant impact on efficacy, she added.
The findings of no impact of dose reduction on efficacy in both the NATALEE and monarchE studies provide important information on whether dosage can be reduced in patients, which will increase the odds that patients will tolerate extended therapy with good outcomes and stay on their prescribed therapies, Dr. Hamilton emphasized.
The CARABELA study, a phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant letrozole plus abemaciclib vs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC), showed clinically similar response rates but did not meet its endpoint for residual cancer burden (RCB) scores. These data add to results from other studies and show that it is too soon to universally replace neoadjuvant chemotherapy as first-line treatment for highly proliferative ER+ breast cancer, Dr. Hamilton said in her presentation.
Advanced Breast Cancer
Take-home messages about advanced breast cancer include growing evidence for the potential benefits of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), said Eva Ciruelos, MD, of University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. The TROPION-BREAST01 study, a phase 3 randomized trial, showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who received datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) compared with those who received chemotherapy.
Data from an additional safety analysis were presented at the meeting; although Dato-DXd, a trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP2)–directed antibody-drug conjugate, was well-tolerated, it is important to remain aware of toxicities, notably oral mucositis, which occurred in 55.6% of the patients in the study across all grades, and ocular surface toxicity, which occurred in 40% of patients across all grades, Dr. Ciruelos emphasized.
Key research in the area of advanced triple-negative breast cancer included data from the IMPASSION 132 study. This study is “specifically centered on early relapsers,” a population often excluded from other trials, Dr. Ciruelos said. In this study, patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer were randomized to chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab, and the study showed no benefits with atezolizumab for overall survival, progression-free survival, or overall response rate, she said. “This is something to work with, because this is a very refractory population,” Dr. Ciruelos noted.
New immunotherapy combinations are needed to improve survival in advanced breast cancer patients, Dr. Ciruelos said. At the meeting, researchers presented interim data from a subset of patients in the MORPHEUS-pan breast cancer trial, a phase 1B/2 study involving multiple treatment combinations in locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.
The interim analysis included 18-week data from triple-negative breast cancer patients and compared outcomes for patients randomized to atezolizumab with or without sacituzumab govitecan (SG).
The study was small, with only 31 patients in the combination arm and 11 controls, but the results were promising, with an overall response rate of 76.7% in the combination arm vs 66.7% in the control arm, Dr. Ciruelos said.
Supportive Care
Key supportive care takeaways included data on pregnancy in young breast cancer survivors and the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in breast cancer patients with genitourinary symptoms, said Anne May, MD, of the University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
A study previously published in JAMA including nearly 5000 BRCA carriers who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger showed no association between pregnancy after breast cancer and adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, and pregnancy had no significant impact on overall survival. The authors presented new data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) based on the 543 pregnancies in the original study, at the meeting. Of these, 436 conceived naturally, and 107 used ART. After a median of 9.1 years, ART had no effect on disease-free survival compared to natural conception (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64). Based on these findings, fertility preservation should be offered to all women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis and are interested in future fertility, Dr. May said.
Conceiving after breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated for young BRCA carriers, she added.No trial data are available for the effects of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) on disease-free survival in breast cancer survivors with genitourinary symptoms caused by declining estrogen levels, Dr. May said. However, researchers in France and Switzerland conducted an emulation of a hypothetical target trial using data from the French National social security system for more than 130,000 individuals. Although VET therapy had no impact on disease-free survival in most breast cancer survivors overall, it did have a negative impact in a subset of patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors who were treated with aromatase inhibitors. The study was hypothetical, but important because the results suggest that clinicians can safely propose VTE to patients who report genitourinary symptoms after treatment for early-stage breast cancer with tamoxifen, but VTE should be avoided in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors, Dr. May said.
Dr. Delaloge disclosed research support to her institution from AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Taiho, Novartis, European Commission, INCa, Banque des Territoires, and Fondation Philanthropia. She also disclosed honoraria to her institution from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Elsan, Besins, Sanofi, Exact Sciences, and Lilly, as well as travel support from Novartis.
Dr. Kok disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi, and Roche, and advisory board membership/speaker’s fees from Alderaan Biotechnology, BIONTECH, Domain Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Daichi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Medscape, MSD, and Roche.
Dr. Hamilton disclosed a consulting advisory role (to her institution) for Accutar Biotechology, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, Entos, Forsum Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Greenwich LifeSciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Medical Pharma Services, Mersana, Novartis, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Orum Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Stemline Therapeutics, ands others. She also disclosed contracted research/grant support to her institution only from Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Accutar Biotechnology , ADC Therapeutics, AKESOBIO Australia , Amgen, Aravive, ArQule, Artios, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, BeiGene, Black Diamond and others.
Dr. Ciruelos disclosed serving as an external advisor for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly, as well as serving as a speaker for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. She also disclosed travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and research grants from Seagen and Roche.
Dr. May had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Among the topics the speakers addressed were breast cancer prevention, early breast cancer, advanced breast cancer, and supportive care.
In recent years, the way clinicians look at carcinogenesis in breast cancer has changed, and many new targets for potential early detection and prevention have emerged, said Suzette Delaloge, MD, of Gustave Roussy, Paris, France, in her presentation at the meeting.
Instant risk assessment at different time points could potentially intercept cancer among high-risk individuals, she said.
A study by Mikael Eriksson, PhD, and colleagues focused on external validation of the Profound AI tool to identify breast cancer risk in the general population. The researchers showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in their AI risk model, which has the potential to be clinically meaningful, although it must be prospectively validated, Dr. Delaloge said in her presentation.
She also reviewed two studies on the use of genes to further refine breast cancer risk among carriers. One of these, a prospective study presented in a session by Kelly-Anne Phillips, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia, used the CANRISK online risk assessment tool and validated increased breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The other study, which was by Maria Rezqallah Aron, MD, and colleagues examined polygenic scores as a way to refine breast cancer risk stratification among carriers of the ALM and PALB2 genes as well. These genes might be useful in identifying individuals who could benefit from early intervention, including surgery, Dr. Delaloge said.
Translational Research
“Preparing my talk, I felt like a kid in a candy store,” because of the amount of new translational research presented, including several studies of endocrine treatment–based approaches to therapy, said Marleen Kok, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
In her presentation, Dr. Kok highlighted findings from an analysis of patients in the monarchE study (a trial of high-risk patients) showing a consistent improvement in invasive disease-free survival for the subset of patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy.
The value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on patients who are not receiving chemotherapy is important because of the focus on prognosis, and prospective trials are underway, she said.
A poster on the impact of chemotherapy and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in stage I triple-negative breast cancer showed no association between chemotherapy and better outcomes regardless of sTILs in patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy, which has implications for potential treatment sparing in this population, Dr. Kok noted.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the subject of several posters at the meeting, and Dr. Kok identified a multisite European study of an automated HER2 scoring system as notable for its size and accuracy. In the study, the accuracy among pathologists was much higher with the assistance of AI, she said. Using AI for more complex analysis has shown success, she said.
Dr. Kok ended her talk with a poster that surveyed breast cancer patients about their understanding of their disease. The results showed that less than half (44%) of patients reported that their healthcare providers had given them enough information to learn about their breast cancer type, and less than one third could recall terminology about biomarkers; the study is important because it shows that clinicians need to do better in explaining these terms to patients, Dr. Kok said.
Early Breast Cancer
Right-sizing therapy, meaning identifying the right treatment for every patient, is a key element of new research in early breast cancer, said Erika Hamilton, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
She highlighted safety and treatment duration updates from the NATALEE study, which compared adjuvant ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) to NSAI alone for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. The current analysis presented at the meeting showed significant benefits with the addition of ribociclib and no evidence of new safety signals or adverse event exacerbations at 3 years, she said. Dose modifications had no significant impact on efficacy, she added.
The findings of no impact of dose reduction on efficacy in both the NATALEE and monarchE studies provide important information on whether dosage can be reduced in patients, which will increase the odds that patients will tolerate extended therapy with good outcomes and stay on their prescribed therapies, Dr. Hamilton emphasized.
The CARABELA study, a phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant letrozole plus abemaciclib vs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC), showed clinically similar response rates but did not meet its endpoint for residual cancer burden (RCB) scores. These data add to results from other studies and show that it is too soon to universally replace neoadjuvant chemotherapy as first-line treatment for highly proliferative ER+ breast cancer, Dr. Hamilton said in her presentation.
Advanced Breast Cancer
Take-home messages about advanced breast cancer include growing evidence for the potential benefits of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), said Eva Ciruelos, MD, of University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. The TROPION-BREAST01 study, a phase 3 randomized trial, showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who received datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) compared with those who received chemotherapy.
Data from an additional safety analysis were presented at the meeting; although Dato-DXd, a trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP2)–directed antibody-drug conjugate, was well-tolerated, it is important to remain aware of toxicities, notably oral mucositis, which occurred in 55.6% of the patients in the study across all grades, and ocular surface toxicity, which occurred in 40% of patients across all grades, Dr. Ciruelos emphasized.
Key research in the area of advanced triple-negative breast cancer included data from the IMPASSION 132 study. This study is “specifically centered on early relapsers,” a population often excluded from other trials, Dr. Ciruelos said. In this study, patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer were randomized to chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab, and the study showed no benefits with atezolizumab for overall survival, progression-free survival, or overall response rate, she said. “This is something to work with, because this is a very refractory population,” Dr. Ciruelos noted.
New immunotherapy combinations are needed to improve survival in advanced breast cancer patients, Dr. Ciruelos said. At the meeting, researchers presented interim data from a subset of patients in the MORPHEUS-pan breast cancer trial, a phase 1B/2 study involving multiple treatment combinations in locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.
The interim analysis included 18-week data from triple-negative breast cancer patients and compared outcomes for patients randomized to atezolizumab with or without sacituzumab govitecan (SG).
The study was small, with only 31 patients in the combination arm and 11 controls, but the results were promising, with an overall response rate of 76.7% in the combination arm vs 66.7% in the control arm, Dr. Ciruelos said.
Supportive Care
Key supportive care takeaways included data on pregnancy in young breast cancer survivors and the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in breast cancer patients with genitourinary symptoms, said Anne May, MD, of the University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
A study previously published in JAMA including nearly 5000 BRCA carriers who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger showed no association between pregnancy after breast cancer and adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, and pregnancy had no significant impact on overall survival. The authors presented new data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) based on the 543 pregnancies in the original study, at the meeting. Of these, 436 conceived naturally, and 107 used ART. After a median of 9.1 years, ART had no effect on disease-free survival compared to natural conception (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64). Based on these findings, fertility preservation should be offered to all women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis and are interested in future fertility, Dr. May said.
Conceiving after breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated for young BRCA carriers, she added.No trial data are available for the effects of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) on disease-free survival in breast cancer survivors with genitourinary symptoms caused by declining estrogen levels, Dr. May said. However, researchers in France and Switzerland conducted an emulation of a hypothetical target trial using data from the French National social security system for more than 130,000 individuals. Although VET therapy had no impact on disease-free survival in most breast cancer survivors overall, it did have a negative impact in a subset of patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors who were treated with aromatase inhibitors. The study was hypothetical, but important because the results suggest that clinicians can safely propose VTE to patients who report genitourinary symptoms after treatment for early-stage breast cancer with tamoxifen, but VTE should be avoided in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors, Dr. May said.
Dr. Delaloge disclosed research support to her institution from AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Taiho, Novartis, European Commission, INCa, Banque des Territoires, and Fondation Philanthropia. She also disclosed honoraria to her institution from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Elsan, Besins, Sanofi, Exact Sciences, and Lilly, as well as travel support from Novartis.
Dr. Kok disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi, and Roche, and advisory board membership/speaker’s fees from Alderaan Biotechnology, BIONTECH, Domain Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Daichi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Medscape, MSD, and Roche.
Dr. Hamilton disclosed a consulting advisory role (to her institution) for Accutar Biotechology, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, Entos, Forsum Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Greenwich LifeSciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Medical Pharma Services, Mersana, Novartis, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Orum Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Stemline Therapeutics, ands others. She also disclosed contracted research/grant support to her institution only from Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Accutar Biotechnology , ADC Therapeutics, AKESOBIO Australia , Amgen, Aravive, ArQule, Artios, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, BeiGene, Black Diamond and others.
Dr. Ciruelos disclosed serving as an external advisor for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly, as well as serving as a speaker for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. She also disclosed travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and research grants from Seagen and Roche.
Dr. May had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2024
Does More Systemic Treatment for Advanced Cancer Improve Survival?
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Liposomal Irinotecan for Pancreatic Cancer: Is It Worth It?
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.